Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 301 to 350 of 574

Thread: Which D/FW Area Colleges & Universities Deserve Tier 1 Status?

  1. #301
    Low-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    207
    UH System has a lot of flaws, but they're doing an ok job as far as establishing new schools. UNT system is a mess right now, and UNT-Dallas is the largest wound. I know about their Master Plan, and I also know that they have sent representatives to UHD to see how our school works. This means that they are very unclear on what they want to do, and HOW they can go about it. Even worse, UNT Denton is doing little or nothing to guide how that university develops. These are problems for the school right now. I'm hopeful that they can be worked out, and that the school can become a steward of the public instead of a ciphon. But it's going to take some hard work. In my personal opinion, I think a school like UHD would work better in Dallas than the current plans, and I was led to believe that that is why they sent people to UHD. I could be very wrong about that... time will tell.

    You obviously know nothing about TSU, nor do you care to know about it. Priscilla Slade is GONE... and the former UH Provost is their new President... he is cleaning house at that school, and attracting some top notch faculty. The school has had its problems, but again it serves a very important need for Houston, Texas, and the South Central region. You complain about others' ignorance, yet you continue to show so much within yourself through antequated 20th century language, and a complete lack open-mindedness. Sounds like you have some personal work to do to get over your one-dimensional opinions.

    UCD probably works very well for some students. But again, a "Collaborative campus" like that brings its own world of challenges. Students are constantly caught up in a Russian roulette of transfer credits... taking core at a community college, foreign language at one of UCD's institutions, extra curriculars at another, and then trying to slog through a major while taking enough credits from their "home school" to complete the requirements, meet their residency restrictions, and avoid the DREADED enrollment cap for Texas public institutions. If it were me, I'd rather just deal with one school and stick to one degree plan.

    Community Colleges as great as they can be also have a quota... they have to push students into Associates degrees. This is not always helpful, b/c it's going to waste a lot of time when you're finally ready to transfer to the four-year school. The proactive student (I know this isn't everyone) is going to start their college career with their major and final school in mind, so they can avoid the traps within community college.

    As far as your "specific" questions... they don't mean anything to me. You can answer them for yourself, or just go back to watching Hannity's America.

  2. #302
    Done
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by totheskies
    UH System has a lot of flaws, but they're doing an ok job as far as establishing new schools. UNT system is a mess right now, and UNT-Dallas is the largest wound. I know about their Master Plan, and I also know that they have sent representatives to UHD to see how our school works. This means that they are very unclear on what they want to do, and HOW they can go about it. Even worse, UNT Denton is doing little or nothing to guide how that university develops. These are problems for the school right now. I'm hopeful that they can be worked out, and that the school can become a steward of the public instead of a ciphon. But it's going to take some hard work. In my personal opinion, I think a school like UHD would work better in Dallas than the current plans, and I was led to believe that that is why they sent people to UHD. I could be very wrong about that... time will tell.

    You obviously know nothing about TSU, nor do you care to know about it. Priscilla Slade is GONE... and the former UH Provost is their new President... he is cleaning house at that school, and attracting some top notch faculty. The school has had its problems, but again it serves a very important need for Houston, Texas, and the South Central region. You complain about others' ignorance, yet you continue to show so much within yourself through antequated 20th century language, and a complete lack open-mindedness. Sounds like you have some personal work to do to get over your one-dimensional opinions.

    UCD probably works very well for some students. But again, a "Collaborative campus" like that brings its own world of challenges. Students are constantly caught up in a Russian roulette of transfer credits... taking core at a community college, foreign language at one of UCD's institutions, extra curriculars at another, and then trying to slog through a major while taking enough credits from their "home school" to complete the requirements, meet their residency restrictions, and avoid the DREADED enrollment cap for Texas public institutions. If it were me, I'd rather just deal with one school and stick to one degree plan.

    Community Colleges as great as they can be also have a quota... they have to push students into Associates degrees. This is not always helpful, b/c it's going to waste a lot of time when you're finally ready to transfer to the four-year school. The proactive student (I know this isn't everyone) is going to start their college career with their major and final school in mind, so they can avoid the traps within community college.

    As far as your "specific" questions... they don't mean anything to me. You can answer them for yourself, or just go back to watching Hannity's America.

    first basically through the muffled sounds of your voice coming from chris matthews lap what you have just admitted is royce west and a bunch of shake down artist started an entirely new university with no clear mission at all what so ever and just shot for the moon to get as much educational dollar fat as they could flowing into south dallas......no matter that there was no clue what the need was or if there even was a need....just start spending precious educational dollars, fail to live up to enrollment projections (even lowered ones) for years, and then once the money is wasted THEN start trying to figure out if there is a need, what that need is, and how that need (if it exist) can be filled

    thanks for finally admitting the truth....it took you long enough, but maybe keith oberman had you distracted

    second the reason unt-Denton has not stepped up to help with anything is because unt-Denton is a horribly run university themselves......which is why as an extremely large (forth largest in Texas) university they still have ZERO professional programs for their main campus, one of the smallest colleges of engineering in Texas, do 16 million in external research, and have an endowment that rivals Texas State San Marcos and Angelo State in value ( I think both Tx State and Angelo might be larger now).....unt-Denton has no clue what they want to be as well and they take the same royce west knee jerk approach to trying to be something.....which is why they are starting a campus in south dallas VS addressing the numerous issues in Denton....and why they are after a law school that has been declared as not really needed in a couple of studies.....and the reason they lose faculty in engineering like someone is holding a gun to them to force them to leave....hell they can't even get a football stadium built or field a decent football team (or any other sport) in TEXAS with relatively low admissions requirements and a large student body....good God if you can't be anything (besides a Jazz Studies Program) at least fall back on sports they can't even do that right

    third UH is the first or second most diverse large metro university in the USA....UHD is also extremely diverse.....TSU is extremely segregated....and the issues with TSU started long before the previous president....and their law school still has by far the lowest BAR passing rates in Texas every year.....TSU is yesteryear and a failure and should be done away with.....there are two other better universities in Houston now with TRUE diversity VS segregation by choice to serve ALL students in the region and beyond

    you basically answered the 4 questions....it hurt your pride to do it....it distracted you from chris and keith....but the truth came out.....unt-dallas has no clue what they are doing, what need they serve, and they still have no clue what needs (if any) there are or how to meet those needs....because truthfully there was not a need

    and as for the UCD if it has issues that is probably because unt is currently making a strong move to take it over even though the THECB has already told them the other universities are there to stay for the longer term....and along with unts grand plan for the UCD....and even though they currently have an under performing south dallas campus with goals of having dorms ect.......unt went and purchased a residential building against the wishes of THECB and has now admitted to THECB that the projections for residents in that building are below their projections even though they allow non-student residents to live there....the UCD is underutilized.....it currently fills space with a high school even though Denton has TAMS their own high school program that Rick Perry finally wisely cut some funding for and unt still kept and now they have wasted residential space....if you get past pre calculus or take engineering based physics at unt you find that their higher level math and physics classes exist because TAMS kids fill them....then if you ask a TAMS kid what they are going to do after "high school" their answer is "go to a good university"

    so you have a large arts, liberal arts, and education college mixed in with a science high school trying to masquerade as a university system based on having a DO school that never wanted to be a part of unt, a failed south dallas campus, and a UCD with wasted residential space and classroom space serving a bunch more high school kids and a few people mostly taking classes from TAMU-Commerce....hell from their own website UCD has LOST nearly half their peak enrollment since 2000 and it looks as though TWU has pulled out and UTA is barely there.....and "all of that" requires unt to have a system with their own offices and chancellor VS the much better model that UH has....and yet some people think unt will do anything but fail with a law school

    hell UH's main campus has more students than the entire unt system combined.....then you add in Clear Lake and UHD and UH can still run their system with just Dr Khator as president and chancellor (she is amazing though)....unt needs a chancellor and their own system offices

    and some wonder why higher education in Texas is short on funds and why the dallas area with 4 very old state schools has no university above tier 3 in US news rankings or doing near the amount of external research UH does or why those 4 dallas universities have less endowment combined than UH....and less members of national academies combined than UH.....maybe it is because porky west ignores his own alma mater UTA in favor of pork projects in dallas.....because pork for UTA or even UTD does not keep the ignorant masses voting for porky
    Last edited by Someone; 14 March 2009 at 08:57 AM.

  3. #303
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,425
    Quote Originally Posted by Someone
    first basically through the muffled sounds of your voice coming from chris matthews lap what you have just admitted is royce west and a bunch of shake down artist started an entirely new university with no clear mission at all what so ever and just shot for the moon to get as much educational dollar fat as they could flowing into south dallas......no matter that there was no clue what the need was or if there even was a need....just start spending precious educational dollars, fail to live up to enrollment projections (even lowered ones) for years, and then once the money is wasted THEN start trying to figure out if there is a need, what that need is, and how that need (if it exist) can be filled
    For a second I thought you were describing the proposed downtown law school. :-)

  4. #304
    Administrator tamtagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Atlanta - Dallas
    Posts
    13,053
    Someone, the conclusions you have expressed that UNT-Dallas has little merit as a physical location, is crippled by inept unfocused administrative direction and is dubiously supported by a wanton municipal politician makes a whole lotta sense; but within the collegial environment we attempt on this discussion forum, your slashing harangue against the individuals and organizations responsible for the existence of UNT-Dallas as well as the way you've dismissed as stupid or duped the experiences and opinions of other forum participants will almost always overwhelm the merit of your analysis.

    The way you have used assumptions, stereotypes and generalizations to reinforced any factual evidence criticizing the need for UNT-Dallas casts doubt the motivation for your conclusions, at least for me personally. It's simply my reaction to the how you disparage the people you do not agree with that makes it so hard to agree with you.

    For the record, I am totally in favor of establishing a university in South Dallas primarily because of the way it will help create a more cohesive, cooperative and positive community feel in fragmented South Dallas.
    Last edited by tamtagon; 14 March 2009 at 01:18 PM.

  5. #305
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,425
    Quote Originally Posted by tamtagon
    For the record, I am totally in favor of establishing a university in South Dallas primarily because of the way it will help create a more cohesive, cooperative and positive community feel in fragmented South Dallas.
    How is that the responsibility of the taxpayers?

  6. #306
    Administrator tamtagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Atlanta - Dallas
    Posts
    13,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Hannibal Lecter
    How is that the responsibility of the taxpayers?
    Well, that's what taxpayers do, they use government to built their society.

  7. #307
    Skyscraper Member Spjz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Un Barrio en San Antonio
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Hannibal Lecter
    How is that the responsibility of the taxpayers?
    It's not the responsibility of the tax payers. It's the choice of the tax payers - to tax and spend as they see fit. You might've heard that the government has the power, derived from the people through our constitution (both state and federal), to tax and spend for the general welfare. Sometimes - ok, always - you seem to forget that.

  8. #308
    Skyscraper Member sterling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    1,216
    It seems Someone can't make their arguments seem valid without accusative references to Chris Matthew's lap and other not-so-subtle pointless slurs. A few capitalizations, commas etc... might go a long way in an otherwise seemingly vapid waste of space. As for the senseless sexualization of the argument... whatever kid.

  9. #309
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,425
    Quote Originally Posted by tamtagon
    Well, that's what taxpayers do, they use government to built their society.
    Hmm... Looking for the place in the federal or state constitution where it talks about building society. Nope, not there.

  10. #310
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,425
    Quote Originally Posted by Spjz
    It's not the responsibility of the tax payers. It's the choice of the tax payers - to tax and spend as they see fit. You might've heard that the government has the power, derived from the people through our constitution (both state and federal), to tax and spend for the general welfare. Sometimes - ok, always - you seem to forget that.
    So what does spending money to "create a more cohesive, cooperative and positive community feel in fragmented South Dallas" have to do with the general welfare? By definition, if its targeting South Dallas then it isn't the *general* welfare.

  11. #311
    Low-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    108
    Say what you will about Someone's delivery style, his observations and conclusions are right on. I'm glad this forum exists to help expose what is happening.

  12. #312
    Administrator tamtagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Atlanta - Dallas
    Posts
    13,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick
    Say what you will about Someone's delivery style, his observations and conclusions are right on. I'm glad this forum exists to help expose what is happening.
    word

  13. #313
    Skyscraper Member Spjz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Un Barrio en San Antonio
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Hannibal Lecter
    So what does spending money to "create a more cohesive, cooperative and positive community feel in fragmented South Dallas" have to do with the general welfare? By definition, if its targeting South Dallas then it isn't the *general* welfare.
    By my count DFW has three public universities (UTA, UNT, and UTD). One is in Denton Co, one in Tarrant Co, and one is practically in Collin Co (technically in far northern Dallas Co). I'd say that when you consider the size of the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex within the greater context that there is an overwhelming consensus in this country that education is the duty and function of the state, that we ought to have a four year university either in central or southern Dallas County, and that only when we do have one, can we say with a straight face that we are providing for the "general welfare."

    I trust Royce West about as far as I can throw his fat ass, but just because somebody has a political or pecuniary interest in a particular initiative doesn't mean that it's unworthy.

  14. #314
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    White Rock Lake/Casa Linda
    Posts
    334
    Good debate here, but can we stop talking about UNT-Dallas in THIS thread? UNT-Dallas is not in the running for tier one and probably will never be, at least not this decade or century.

    Make a separate thread.

    Most people in the know would argue that even UNT is not really in the running. $16 mil in research? Ha. How much for the new stadium? $72 million and growing? And every time I bring up football as a wasteful expense I am blasted for it, but that's Texas, maybe I should just acquiesce and move on?


    ---

  15. #315
    Low-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    108
    Football for some is a huge waste and should be avoided, but, for others, even with the deficits, is probably justifiable if attendance is high and financial support is at least decent. There is a spectrum. Justifiable at Tech and other places. NOT justifiable at Arlington, Dallas, and a number of places where it does exist at great cost with small support.

    Yep, UNT really isn't a serious contender for "Tier 1" (which is a terrible term, as it is so non-descriptive). They know they can't be taken real seriously in this discussion. I think the best they hope for is that they get some additional funding.

    Maybe UNT-Dallas isn't directly related to "Tier 1," but it is symptomatic of why we don't already have more national research universities in Texas.

  16. #316
    Low-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by Someone
    first basically through the muffled sounds of your voice coming from chris matthews lap what you have just admitted is royce west and a bunch of shake down artist started an entirely new university with no clear mission at all what so ever and just shot for the moon to get as much educational dollar fat as they could flowing into south dallas......no matter that there was no clue what the need was or if there even was a need....just start spending precious educational dollars, fail to live up to enrollment projections (even lowered ones) for years, and then once the money is wasted THEN start trying to figure out if there is a need, what that need is, and how that need (if it exist) can be filled

    thanks for finally admitting the truth....it took you long enough, but maybe keith oberman had you distracted

    second the reason unt-Denton has not stepped up to help with anything is because unt-Denton is a horribly run university themselves......which is why as an extremely large (forth largest in Texas) university they still have ZERO professional programs for their main campus, one of the smallest colleges of engineering in Texas, do 16 million in external research, and have an endowment that rivals Texas State San Marcos and Angelo State in value ( I think both Tx State and Angelo might be larger now).....unt-Denton has no clue what they want to be as well and they take the same royce west knee jerk approach to trying to be something.....which is why they are starting a campus in south dallas VS addressing the numerous issues in Denton....and why they are after a law school that has been declared as not really needed in a couple of studies.....and the reason they lose faculty in engineering like someone is holding a gun to them to force them to leave....hell they can't even get a football stadium built or field a decent football team (or any other sport) in TEXAS with relatively low admissions requirements and a large student body....good God if you can't be anything (besides a Jazz Studies Program) at least fall back on sports they can't even do that right

    third UH is the first or second most diverse large metro university in the USA....UHD is also extremely diverse.....TSU is extremely segregated....and the issues with TSU started long before the previous president....and their law school still has by far the lowest BAR passing rates in Texas every year.....TSU is yesteryear and a failure and should be done away with.....there are two other better universities in Houston now with TRUE diversity VS segregation by choice to serve ALL students in the region and beyond

    you basically answered the 4 questions....it hurt your pride to do it....it distracted you from chris and keith....but the truth came out.....unt-dallas has no clue what they are doing, what need they serve, and they still have no clue what needs (if any) there are or how to meet those needs....because truthfully there was not a need

    and as for the UCD if it has issues that is probably because unt is currently making a strong move to take it over even though the THECB has already told them the other universities are there to stay for the longer term....and along with unts grand plan for the UCD....and even though they currently have an under performing south dallas campus with goals of having dorms ect.......unt went and purchased a residential building against the wishes of THECB and has now admitted to THECB that the projections for residents in that building are below their projections even though they allow non-student residents to live there....the UCD is underutilized.....it currently fills space with a high school even though Denton has TAMS their own high school program that Rick Perry finally wisely cut some funding for and unt still kept and now they have wasted residential space....if you get past pre calculus or take engineering based physics at unt you find that their higher level math and physics classes exist because TAMS kids fill them....then if you ask a TAMS kid what they are going to do after "high school" their answer is "go to a good university"

    so you have a large arts, liberal arts, and education college mixed in with a science high school trying to masquerade as a university system based on having a DO school that never wanted to be a part of unt, a failed south dallas campus, and a UCD with wasted residential space and classroom space serving a bunch more high school kids and a few people mostly taking classes from TAMU-Commerce....hell from their own website UCD has LOST nearly half their peak enrollment since 2000 and it looks as though TWU has pulled out and UTA is barely there.....and "all of that" requires unt to have a system with their own offices and chancellor VS the much better model that UH has....and yet some people think unt will do anything but fail with a law school

    hell UH's main campus has more students than the entire unt system combined.....then you add in Clear Lake and UHD and UH can still run their system with just Dr Khator as president and chancellor (she is amazing though)....unt needs a chancellor and their own system offices

    and some wonder why higher education in Texas is short on funds and why the dallas area with 4 very old state schools has no university above tier 3 in US news rankings or doing near the amount of external research UH does or why those 4 dallas universities have less endowment combined than UH....and less members of national academies combined than UH.....maybe it is because porky west ignores his own alma mater UTA in favor of pork projects in dallas.....because pork for UTA or even UTD does not keep the ignorant masses voting for porky
    Yeah, but you're using facts to support your very VERY close-minded and prejudiced opinions against schools like UNT-Dallas and Texas Southern. You can insult me and my intelligence all you like, but it won't change the fact that North Texas needs more educational opportunities (especially if good schools like UTD are going to reach Tier 1). Yeah, I agree... UNT-Dallas is mismanaged right now, but that doesn't mean its still not needed. If anything, people should work to bring these problems to light so that the fledgling school will know what to fix.

    UNT has the potential to be GREAT system... you know why??? B/c its in a GREAT Metro. Is there work to do? Of course, but that doesn't mean that UNT Dallas doesn't have a place in the system.

    And please, just don't say anything else about Texas Southern, diversity therein, or HBCUs in general. You're getting dangerously close to sounding like a racist.

    And BTW... I'm glad that highlighting my spelling errors made you feel better. Though I'm kinda saddened that you require that in order to maintain your self-esteem.
    Last edited by totheskies; 16 March 2009 at 11:22 AM.

  17. #317
    Low-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt777
    Good debate here, but can we stop talking about UNT-Dallas in THIS thread? UNT-Dallas is not in the running for tier one and probably will never be, at least not this decade or century.

    Make a separate thread.

    Most people in the know would argue that even UNT is not really in the running. $16 mil in research? Ha. How much for the new stadium? $72 million and growing? And every time I bring up football as a wasteful expense I am blasted for it, but that's Texas, maybe I should just acquiesce and move on?

    ---
    The Tier 1 competition is not all about the finish line either... it's about making the whole Texas higher ed. community a better place. If UNT is increasing its research funding, improving its gradution and retention, and expanding its programs, everyone in D/FW will win whether the school makes Tier 1 or not.

  18. #318
    High-Rise Member AndyIvey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Lakewood Heights
    Posts
    705
    You can't lob an opinion and then ask to move on. Look at any list of the top universities in this country and you will see that the majority of them have a ranked team in baseball, basketball, or football. That means they not only finance a major sport, but they do so to a point that they are one of the best programs in the country.

    Of the minority- the schools that do not have a ranked sport program - most of them have a deep athletic history. Only after reaching elite status was the status of their athletic programs reduced. This leaves a very, very small number of schools that reached elite status with no major athletic presence. I can only think of Carnegie Mellon off the top of my head.

    Not only is the idea that UTD is "above" funding athletics laughable, but it runs counter to the clear relationship between winning athletics and winning universities.

    The only thing that might be wasteful is the huge amount of cash it would take to start a major sports program. That's a great reason not to have sports at UTD. It would take a huge investment to drive a winning program.

  19. #319
    Skyscraper Member Mark Lea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,766
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyIvey
    Of the minority- the schools that do not have a ranked sport program - most of them have a deep athletic history. Only after reaching elite status was the status of their athletic programs reduced. This leaves a very, very small number of schools that reached elite status with no major athletic presence. I can only think of Carnegie Mellon off the top of my head.
    I can think of a few more but not many. Emory has never had a football team and it plays D3 in all the other sports. WashU in St Louis is another example (though they have a hoorrible football team in some low division). Some of the Ivy League schools and possibly Johns Hopkins are other examples.

  20. #320
    Mega-Tall Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cedars
    Posts
    3,599
    How about Cal-Tech? Tier 1 schools are either gigantic state supported flagsjhip institutions or private schools that have been around for decades. Almost every private school that's been around for decades has a "deep athletic history" from longevity and, until the last 30-40 years, money, payments while in school and opportunities after leaving school, was not the primary driver in sports programs. At the other end of the spectrum, these flagship degree factories spend money all over the place for different stakeholders. In most states, people that don't know a test tube from a petri dish expect their school to be competitive. The expectation, diven by non-research stateholders, is there and schools respond.

    Athletics has zero to do with Tier 1 research funding status.
    The first rule in process analysis taught on the second day: Coincidence is not causality.

  21. #321
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    White Rock Lake/Casa Linda
    Posts
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyIvey
    You can't lob an opinion and then ask to move on.


    .......

    The only thing that might be wasteful is the huge amount of cash it would take to start a major sports program. That's a great reason not to have sports at UTD. It would take a huge investment to drive a winning program.
    The part I was asking to move on about was the UNT-Dallas existence debate, which I suggested was for a separate thread.

    The football program debate is relevant to this discussion, though. You are right, it would take a HUGE investment to drive a winning program, and all good football programs have been thoroughly invested in. Look at Tech's history with football, and UNT's future with football. I can't even imagine how many hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into Tech's excellent football program, maybe it approaches or exceeds a billion. But is that cost justified? For Tech, yes, it is probably in the top 1 or two reasons that most students attend Tech. Would it be justified for UTD? No, students at UTD attend because for more academic-related reasons. Does that mean that UTD is in the wrong for not having a football program, and for that does not deserve tier one status? No. In the debates that will ensue between the schools as they "battle" for tier one, I think people will see a clear distinction between the culture of Tech and the culture of UTD. Remember, this is a discussion on funding a tier one RESEARCH university, not a tier one pigskin palace.

    Why should taxpayer money go to Tech when they have had the opportunity over their 100 year history to spend more on research, yet they haven't. As soon as they heard money, all of a sudden they came to the trough, all of a sudden they want to spend money on research. Give me a break. UTD has always had an intense focus on research and technology. It was born out of research, from the same people who founded Texas Instruments. When you break it down, UTD spends FAR MORE per student on research than any school being considered. Despite being one of the smallest, it is in the top spots for research investment. Why all of a sudden do Tech and UNT want to do more research?

    Anyway, I wonder if the DMN will follow El Paso's newspaper and fervently support a local university. The El Paso Times website (which looks like it was created in a 10th grade webmastery class) claims that UTEP tops all state school candidates. Reasons? Some military base and border security. Ha: http://www.elpasotimes.com/opinion/ci_11926746
    Last edited by Matt777; 17 March 2009 at 03:25 PM.

  22. #322
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,425
    "But not every university can be in the top 20. And in a time of shrinking state budgets, undergraduates at public universities will most likely pay the price in higher tuition, larger classes and less interaction with tenured professors. So it is a real question how many public research universities the nation can afford, and what share of resources should go to less expensive forms of education, like community colleges."

    NYT article on failed efforts to go "Tier 1":

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/us...html?th&emc=th

  23. #323
    Done
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt777
    The part I was asking to move on about was the UNT-Dallas existence debate, which I suggested was for a separate thread.

    The football program debate is relevant to this discussion, though. You are right, it would take a HUGE investment to drive a winning program, and all good football programs have been thoroughly invested in. Look at Tech's history with football, and UNT's future with football. I can't even imagine how many hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into Tech's excellent football program, maybe it approaches or exceeds a billion. But is that cost justified? For Tech, yes, it is probably in the top 1 or two reasons that most students attend Tech. Would it be justified for UTD? No, students at UTD attend because for more academic-related reasons. Does that mean that UTD is in the wrong for not having a football program, and for that does not deserve tier one status? No. In the debates that will ensue between the schools as they "battle" for tier one, I think people will see a clear distinction between the culture of Tech and the culture of UTD. Remember, this is a discussion on funding a tier one RESEARCH university, not a tier one pigskin palace.

    Why should taxpayer money go to Tech when they have had the opportunity over their 100 year history to spend more on research, yet they haven't. As soon as they heard money, all of a sudden they came to the trough, all of a sudden they want to spend money on research. Give me a break. UTD has always had an intense focus on research and technology. It was born out of research, from the same people who founded Texas Instruments. When you break it down, UTD spends FAR MORE per student on research than any school being considered. Despite being one of the smallest, it is in the top spots for research investment. Why all of a sudden do Tech and UNT want to do more research?

    Anyway, I wonder if the DMN will follow El Paso's newspaper and fervently support a local university. The El Paso Times website (which looks like it was created in a 10th grade webmastery class) claims that UTEP tops all state school candidates. Reasons? Some military base and border security. Ha: http://www.elpasotimes.com/opinion/ci_11926746
    Tech football or no football is light years ahead of where their original goals had them planned to be....for all you claim UTD is it is still a US News (for all their flaws) third tier university just like Tech is...tech still does more in research every year than UTD does, Tech still has a medical school (counted separate for research), Tech still has a law school, Tech still ofers nursing, Tech still has a pharmacy program....none of which UTD can claim.

    Tech is Phi Beta Kappa...UTD is not....Tech is an American Research Library....UTD is not.....Tech has nearly twice the endowment of UTD....Tech had a much higher graduation rate for masters and PhDs in 2008 than UTD and graduated nearly 2X as many PhDs as UTD did......in 2007 Tech graduated undergrad students at nearly the same % as UTD in the 4th year and a higher % in the 6th year....in 2008 I beleive Tech will actually have a higher % in 5th and 6th year graduation rate over UTD

    in 2008 Tech had their business program ranked 3 points higher than UTD

    the facts are students choose Tech over UTD because UTD is an extremely narrow focused university that is MILES AND MILES away from the goals set out for it and can really make no academic claims over Tech...UTD is in exactly the same place as Tech in US News (tier 3) and Tech has a higher ranked business program in Business week.....Tech offers a much broader number of degrees including all the programs that bring in large grants and Tech has nearly the same if not better graduation rates...Phi Betta Kappa...American Research Library....more dollars in research....higher endowment....pretty clear what Tech offers over UTD and why students choose Tech....much less social life and university experience

    most grown ups I know forget about their SAT and class rank about the first week of college...UTD students seem not to....UTD students also can't formulate a reasonable debate and seem to understand NOTHING about the history of the various universities in Texas like Tech, UH, and UTD and how far some have move past their original mission VS how far one has to go to even get near its original mission....UTD students also seem to understand nothing about the value of a well rounded university (which is why UTD is not Phi Betta Kappa and why it will be decades if even before UTD gets a sniff from the AAU)

    you can believe the football factory BS all you wish....but that just means UTD is just like Tech with a lower ranked business school by at least one publication, a smaller endowment, less research performed, and even less in athletics....and the same ranking in US News....not exactly the strongest argument to make in favor of UTD....especially when one looks at the starting point and mission of UTD VS a number of other schools

    hey we were founded to be this great research university that can cheery pick all the top students.....yet we are ranked the same over all by US News....we do less total research....graduate less total PhDs (half) with a lower graduation rate for masters and PhDs and have very similar undergrad graduation rates....we have no academic honor societies or library recognition like some of the others...or endowment is smaller.....we do not offer a broad range of degrees at all....our business college is ranked lower, our endowment is smaller, we have no professional programs, our student life is non-existent....but hey at least you are a chess team factory not a football factory

    if people did not know the FACTS and the history of what Tech and others were founded for VS UTD....they might almost think you have a point...and you are right why award universities that have grown well beyond their founding mission VS one that has yet to even come close to its founding mission

  24. #324
    Administrator tamtagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Atlanta - Dallas
    Posts
    13,053
    Logistically speaking, Texas Tech seems to be the contending university most easily bumped up to a list of better regarded universities and the improved perception could probably happen the most quickly. University of Houston and UTA are, I guess, the next easiest and quickest throw-money-at-the-problem-legislative makeovers.

    Each of these three have large student populations, very broad curriculum, and a main campus with a traditional (expected) student appeal.

    I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but does that sound about right?

  25. #325
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    White Rock Lake/Casa Linda
    Posts
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by Someone
    ..tech still does more in research every year than UTD does,
    Wrong. 2007 numbers were Tech- $52 million. UTD- $59 million. Plus, UTD is HALF the size of Texas Tech, yet spends MORE on research. FACE IT, tech has NEVER put research above anything else. If you put its research budget next to its football budget the gap would be as big as the gap in the two schools student profiles, huge. I repeat, TECH HAS NEVER PUT RESEARCH ABOVE OTHER PRIORITIES. And it wants to be a research university all of a sudden, now that money is being offered? Am I in some kind of crazy world here?


    ...Tech has nearly twice the endowment of UTD....Tech had a much higher graduation rate for masters and PhDs in 2008 than UTD and graduated nearly 2X as many PhDs as UTD did......in 2007 Tech graduated undergrad students at nearly the same % as UTD in the 4th year and a higher % in the 6th year..
    We have established that Tech twice as large as UTD, but this funding is about allowing a school to grow into a tier one university. Throwing money at it will not make it a tier one research school the next day. The money will allow a school to grow into it, and I believe UTD is better poised to do that, based on its history of research and attracting top talent students. I don't think spending more research dollars is going to bring Tech's student profile up to that of other Texas tier ones, whereas UTD is practically there.

    ..in 2008 I beleive Tech will actually have a higher % in 5th and 6th year graduation rate over UTD
    Based on?

    the facts are students choose Tech over UTD because UTD is an extremely narrow focused university that is MILES AND MILES away from the goals set out for it and can really make no academic claims over Tech...UTD is in exactly the same place as Tech in US News (tier 3) and Tech has a higher ranked business program in Business week.....Tech offers a much broader number of degrees including all the programs that bring in large grants and Tech has nearly the same if not better graduation rates...Phi Betta Kappa...American Research Library....more dollars in research THIS IS FALSE BTW....higher endowment....pretty clear what Tech offers over UTD and why students choose Tech....much less social life and university experience
    You keep basing these facts on opinion. And one magazine rating doesn't make it a better business school, I have listed many magazine ratings for UTD's business school but haven't used them to say that makes it better, just to make it known.

    And you fail to mention these students choose Tech over UTD. I don't see it that way, UTD has a much, much better student profile and is much more selective, having a much lower acceptance rate. Unless you can show me a bunch of students who applied to both schools, got in to both, and chose Tech, this statement is purely your opinion. By looking at Tech's student profile, it is highly probable that at least half of Tech students would not have been admitted to UTD, the students are just of a higher caliber, more closely resembling UT-Austin students in statistics.

    it will be decades if even before UTD gets a sniff from the AAU)
    You base this on what? Guess what, Tech has had almost 100 years and it still hasn't "gotten a sniff" from the AAU, so get off your high horse. Even if UTD "gets a sniff" from the AAU in 2040, it still would be in less time than it took Tech. And please, state facts. Your baseless opinions and incorrect facts are getting tiresome.

    you can believe the football factory BS all you wish....but that just means UTD is just like Tech with a lower ranked business school by at least one publication, a smaller endowment, less research performed, and even less in athletics....and the same ranking in US News....not exactly the strongest argument to make in favor of UTD....especially when one looks at the starting point and mission of UTD VS a number of other schools
    I keep getting mixed messages from you. Sometimes you claim Tech is lightyears ahead of UTD, then sometimes you say they are similar (graduation rates, other things). You spew out all these random facts (and non-facts), but you ignore anything I bring up about research and student profile and say they aren't important (while claiming football is important). There is a strong argument in favor of UTD, if not, you wouldn't be fighting it so..... hard. And there will be a strong argument in favor when it comes to deciding this issue. UTD president Dr. Daniel is not going to take this sitting down.

    ..but hey at least you are a chess team factory not a football factory
    I guess UTD chess team being the top in the world year after year is funny to you. It's probably funny to many people (in TX). But if you had those two facts put side by side, with no school names mentioned (top chess team vs/ huge football program), which would most people think is more conducive to a top tier research school?


    if people did not know the FACTS and the history of what Tech and others were founded for VS UTD....they might almost think you have a point...and you are right why award universities that have grown well beyond their founding mission VS one that has yet to even come close to its founding mission


    Ok, you think Tech has gone well beyond it's founding mission and UTD "hasn't even come close." Well I certainly hope so!

    Basically, you are saying Tech has matured and is as good as it's going to get, and UTD is still striving upwards. I agree with you.

    But in order for your statement to be true, Tech's founding mission would have to have been to strive for one of the lowest performing student bodies in the state by having super lax admission standards, diverting huge resources to create a top football program, NOT be part of AAU, and despite your claim it has more than UTD, NOT to create any nationally known academic programs, and NOT be a tier one research university. If this was true, you would be right in saying that Tech has grown past their founding mission, because whether you like it or not, that is where Tech is after 100 years.

    On the other hand, UTD has attracted top state students, spent more on research than a school 100 years old and twice it's size (Tech), has a strong focus on research, and is improving at a rate that would have been almost unimaginable a decade ago. And yes, it isn't where it wants to be yet, but it wants to be tier 1. Dr Daniel says UTD's mission is to be a tier one research university, and it has been that. So no, UTD hasn't met its goal yet, but I am glad to see you think Tech has. Thank you for proving my point.



    ------

  26. #326
    Done
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    145
    2007 numbers direct from the source....Tech is higher you might need to stop making things up

    http://www.txhighereddata.org/Intera...veGenerate.cfm

    this is without the TTU med center that is counted on its own......face it you are wrong a lot

    you are dreaming if you think Tech has matured and that is as good as it is going to get....Tech has moved well beyond their starting mission...UTD has not come close to theirs.....you falsely think UTD will keep the same student profile if they grow larger....if that was the case TAMU and UT Austin would still have a higher student profile than UTD....because across the board they are better universities than UTD.....but once you get outside a very small niche....like UTD and focus on liberal arts, arts, education and other subjects the student profile will not stay the same....once you grow larger the student profile will not stay the same.....as UT Austin and TAMU get out from under the 10% rule their student profile will rise most likely....UTDs will probably lower there as well....so pretending with a broader offering of degrees, larger student body, and taking in more 10%ers that UTD will keep the same student profile is a pipe dream...but that has never stopped you before

    Tech has passed their ORIGINAL goal....now they have set the goal higher....you have admitted UTD has not even come close to theirs....meeting goals and passing them and then setting new goals is called success.....setting goals and not meeting them is not success

    you are VOID of any reality of the founding of universities in Texas or of university funding....this is why your opinions are void of substance

    for all your "research" Tech still does more....clear from the THECB site and Tech still has a higher graduation % in masters and PhDs and Tech still graduates more PhDs by a factor of two

    your silly question about "why is Tech trying to be a research university now" just shows your total lack of understanding of higher education, education funding in Texas, and the starting missions of various universities VS where they are at today.....you pretend as though Tech has just started this discussion this year....get a clue....Tech and others have had this discussion for years....it is not Like Tech or UH or others can just start cutting degree programs, raise admissions standards drastically in one year, or just tell Texas "give us more money"

    Tech and UH and others have had to raise admissions standards gradually over time to not lose enrollment of formula funding....they have also had to wait for more universities like UTPD, UHD or others to be created or for WTAMU, UHD, SHSU, and Lamar to expand their offerings before they can start limiting enrollment to better students....and no matter how much funding any university wants the state has to provide it....and when it is a formula based on enrollment then you can't just chop 5,000 students with dramatic enrollment standards increases

    UTD has had unt, UTD, TWU, and now unt-dallas to take all the arts, liberal arts, education, and lesser GPA and class rank students since its founding.....and it is still only a 3rd tier US News school just like Tech and it is not Phi Betta Kappa like Tech or an American Research Library and Tech still has a larger endowment.....so while Tech has been working within the parameters of funding and its original mission and expanding and moving beyond that.....UTD has not had near the types of things to deal with.....and yet there it is...no professional programs, similar rankings in numerous publications, lack of Honor Societies and Library recognition, and less total research....one university has always been on an upward climb....one has flat lined....and it is UTD

    PS it is right there plain as day in the Business Week Rankings TTU with 2X as many students in their college of business still has a higher average GPA and SAT compared to UTD
    Last edited by Someone; 18 March 2009 at 10:10 AM.

  27. #327
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    White Rock Lake/Casa Linda
    Posts
    334
    YOU are wrong a lot:

    Tier 1
    The criteria to reach Tier 1 status includes spending more than $100 million a year on research and offering doctorate degrees in at least 50 academic areas.


    Emerging Texas Research Universities Degree Programs (FY07) Total Research Expenditures (FY08)
    University of Houston 54 $84,852,078
    Texas Tech University 59 $52,839,081
    University of Texas – Dallas 30 $59,300,868

    University of North Texas 77 $16,798,880
    University of Texas – Arlington 36 $66,610,534
    University of Texas – San Antonio 22 $34,601,445
    University of Texas – El Paso 22 $47,907,759

    Source: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

    Also, you say UTD has no honor societies. Ok, but you are wrong:

    * Alpha Epsilon Delta (Pre Health)
    * Alpha Phi Sigma (CJS/Criminology)
    * Beta Alpha Psi (Accounting)
    * Beta Gamma Sigma (Management)
    * Financial Management Association (National Honor Society)
    * Golden Key
    * Omicron Delta Epsilon (International Economics Honor Society)
    * Phi Alpha Delta (Pre Law)
    * Pi Alpha Alpha (Public Affairs)
    * Psi Chi (Psychology)
    * Phi Alpha Theta (History)
    * Pi Sigma Alpha (Political Science)



    You really need to stop making assumptions about UTD, because people reading this may take it as fact before I have to disprove it. It is fine to have opinions about certain subjects but when you flat out lie about things it really hurts your credibility. I think most people talking down about UTD couldn't even state one fact about it, it's just ignorance. I can say a lot about Tech, but I will spare everybody.



    You say that if UTD grows it will have a worse student profile. PROVE IT.

    You say UTD has "flatlined." PROVE IT.

    You complain that UTD does not expand it's liberal arts program because that would require lowering admission standards. Are you claiming that liberal arts students are of a lower standard? Sounds like it. A huge array of liberal arts degree programs (ala UNT) does not all of a sudden improve a school. How would UTD offering degrees in random liberal arts programs improve the engineering, computer science, premed, and business students that make up a big portion of UTD? How is a student majoring in underwater basket weaving going to improve my school? Tech may have a lot of liberal arts degree programs. Great. Are the majority of them any good? Not really, or it would be close to being part of the AAU and getting tier one status. Schools like MIT have similar focuses to schools like UTD, the sciences and business. Does that make them bad schools, no. Why lower overall quality to offer degrees that are in low demand these days anyway, liberal arts degrees are less popular on the whole pay less. Business and the sciences are becoming more popular.

    Yes, I may not know the complete ins and outs of the politics behind all of this. I am only 20 and I don't have a huge interest in bureaucracy. But that doesn't mean that I can't contribute an opinion, state fact, and defend my views, and share my experiences.

    I sometimes think back to high school, and where everybody ended up. Our valedictorian went to Harvard, no surprise, and the rest of the top ten ended up at schools such as Princeton, MIT, UT Austin, and one at UTD. 2 others went to UTD, both in the top 30ish students and both also with outstanding resumes (class of about 500). One more went, probably near the end of the top 10%. Then I think of the students we sent to Tech. None in even the top 10%, I don't believe. One got some sort of athletic scholarship I believe, but definitely no standouts. And then I look at the student profile, and it seems to support this trend. Now, this is just a personal experience, but the statistics support this observation.

    Student profile and ability IS one of the most important measurements of the quality of an institution. I can't take you seriously until you accept that the student profile is a big part of institutional quality. I would never have thought that someone could take a fact like "highest SAT score in the state" and claim it as a negative, but you have managed to do this.

    I do see Tech's lack of research funding for such an established and large school as a big indicator that research is not a top priority, and I stand by that. I want you, Someone, to find the figures of spending on the athletic program. Then put them here for everyone, next to each other, and tell me with a straight face you think Tech has always been committed to research. And don't give me any runaround on how I "don't understand university funding." Just do it.



    ----
    Last edited by Matt777; 18 March 2009 at 01:04 PM.

  28. #328
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    White Rock Lake/Casa Linda
    Posts
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by Someone

    PS it is right there plain as day in the Business Week Rankings TTU with 2X as many students in their college of business still has a higher average GPA and SAT compared to UTD
    TECH- http://www.businessweek.com/bschools...texastech.html
    UTD- http://www.businessweek.com/bschools...xasdallas.html


    Undergrad Business School Profile Stats:

    SAT Scores for full-time entering business students on 1600 scale:

    TECH:
    Mean: 1174
    Median: 1170

    UTD:
    Mean: 1161
    Median: 1160


    WOWWWWWWW. A like .00000003% difference. I would call these identical before calling Tech's scores higher.

    Plus, Tech doesn't even state GPA stats so I don't know where you got the assumption Tech's was higher. Another unashamed lie? But they both do post this:

    TECH:
    Top 10% of high school class- 23 %
    Top 25% of high school class:- 35 %

    UTD:
    Top 10% of high school class- 35 %
    Top 25% of high school class:- 64 %

    HS GPA of 3.75 or higher- 45 %
    HS GPA of 3.5 to 3.74: 27 %

    Tech's business school students yet again, lag behind. Check sources before you use them, please.


    Here are some more stats from your source I think are important from your source!:

    UTD-
    Female: 43 %
    International : 8 %

    TECH-
    Female: 33 %
    International : 2 %

    ---------------------------

    UTD-
    African American: 8 %
    Asian American: 32 %
    Hispanic or Latino American: 14 %
    Multiethnic/Multiracial : 0 %
    Native American: 1 %
    White (Non-Hispanic): 44 %
    Chose not to report: 1 %
    Other: 0 %

    TECH-
    African American: 2 %
    Asian American: 3 %
    Hispanic or Latino American: 10 %
    Multiethnic/Multiracial : 0 %
    Native American: 1 %
    White (Non-Hispanic): 83 %
    Chose not to report: 1 %
    Other: 0 %

    (I guess the word "diversity' hasn't traveled across the prairie to Lubbock yet...)
    -----------------------------


    HERE'S THE CLINCHER

    UTD-
    Total undergraduate business program applicants, 2008-09: 1,898
    Applicants enrolled in undergrad business program 2008-2009:55 %
    Applicants admitted to undergraduate business program, 2008-09: 57 %

    TECH-
    Total undergraduate business program applicants, 2008-09: 2,845
    Applicants enrolled in undergrad business program 2008-2009: 25 %
    Applicants admitted to undergraduate business program, 2008-09: 62 %


    Whoa. Only 25% of applicants admitted to Tech actually enrolled. Geez, and you made it seem like students were absolutely pining to get over there to Lubbock, you know with all the great "student life" you speak of. Geez, I guess even though you say UTD has no student life, over half of applicants admitted enroll. Hmmmmmmm......

    Thanks for suggesting the Businessweek source, though!


    ----
    Last edited by Matt777; 18 March 2009 at 01:28 PM.

  29. #329
    Low-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt777



    You really need to stop making assumptions about UTD, because people reading this may take it as fact before I have to disprove it. It is fine to have opinions about certain subjects but when you flat out lie about things it really hurts your credibility. I think most people talking down about UTD couldn't even state one fact about it, it's just ignorance. I can say a lot about Tech, but I will spare everybody.



    You say that if UTD grows it will have a worse student profile. PROVE IT.

    You say UTD has "flatlined." PROVE IT.

    You complain that UTD does not expand it's liberal arts program because that would require lowering admission standards. Are you claiming that liberal arts students are of a lower standard? Sounds like it. A huge array of liberal arts degree programs (ala UNT) does not all of a sudden improve a school. How would UTD offering degrees in random liberal arts programs improve the engineering, computer science, premed, and business students that make up a big portion of UTD? How is a student majoring in underwater basket weaving going to improve my school? Tech may have a lot of liberal arts degree programs. Great. Are the majority of them any good? Not really, or it would be close to being part of the AAU and getting tier one status. Schools like MIT have similar focuses to schools like UTD, the sciences and business. Does that make them bad schools, no. Why lower overall quality to offer degrees that are in low demand these days anyway, liberal arts degrees are less popular on the whole pay less. Business and the sciences are becoming more popular.
    Whoa... wait a minute. You should be careful b/c in accusing Someone, you're presenting some pretty shabby arguments for yourself. There are obviously Billions of people that have existed throughout all of human history which find some intrisic value in the liberal arts. Otherwise, you wouldn't be "waisting your valuable time" studying them in the Texas Public Core Curriculum. Neither would anyone else around the county, or around the world. In every imaginable field, people study the liberal arts to help expand their minds, and improve their thought processes. And these claims that liberal arts studies are on the decline are just false. Please present some factual evidence to support this claim, and don't just make assumptions based on the fact that you attend a school of like-minded students whom see little need for an arts and humanities-based education.

    BTW CalTech and MIT are obviously great schools, but they are the VAST MINORITY of Tier 1 institutions. Most Tier 1 schools are comprehensive universities that have strong programs in most or all of the academic disciplines. If you look at the three Tier 1 schools that we do have in Texas, this should be pretty clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt777
    Yes, I may not know the complete ins and outs of the politics behind all of this. I am only 20 and I don't have a huge interest in bureaucracy. But that doesn't mean that I can't contribute an opinion, state fact, and defend my views, and share my experiences.

    I sometimes think back to high school, and where everybody ended up. Our valedictorian went to Harvard, no surprise, and the rest of the top ten ended up at schools such as Princeton, MIT, UT Austin, and one at UTD. 2 others went to UTD, both in the top 30ish students and both also with outstanding resumes (class of about 500). One more went, probably near the end of the top 10%. Then I think of the students we sent to Tech. None in even the top 10%, I don't believe. One got some sort of athletic scholarship I believe, but definitely no standouts. And then I look at the student profile, and it seems to support this trend. Now, this is just a personal experience, but the statistics support this observation.

    Student profile and ability IS one of the most important measurements of the quality of an institution. I can't take you seriously until you accept that the student profile is a big part of institutional quality. I would never have thought that someone could take a fact like "highest SAT score in the state" and claim it as a negative, but you have managed to do this.
    So at what point does actual will, determination, and success of the human spirit come into play? You're acting like our fate is sealed the second that we step off of the high school stage (if that were so for me, I would have had the AK loaded and ready). And again, SAT scores are a preemptive indicator for student performance. Which means like anything else, it's a gamble that doesn't always work out. Same thing goes for all those kids that get "written off" by their high schools... if you're still learning how to read in 10th grade, the SAT might be a bit of a struggle for you. But that is no indicator of how smart/dumb someone is.
    Last edited by totheskies; 18 March 2009 at 02:09 PM.

  30. #330
    Low-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt777


    HERE'S THE CLINCHER

    UTD-
    Total undergraduate business program applicants, 2008-09: 1,898
    Applicants enrolled in undergrad business program 2008-2009:55 %
    Applicants admitted to undergraduate business program, 2008-09: 57 %

    TECH-
    Total undergraduate business program applicants, 2008-09: 2,845
    Applicants enrolled in undergrad business program 2008-2009: 25 %
    Applicants admitted to undergraduate business program, 2008-09: 62 %


    Whoa. Only 25% of applicants admitted to Tech actually enrolled. Geez, and you made it seem like students were absolutely pining to get over there to Lubbock, you know with all the great "student life" you speak of. Geez, I guess even though you say UTD has no student life, over half of applicants admitted enroll. Hmmmmmmm......

    Thanks for suggesting the Businessweek source, though!


    ----
    How does number of students enrolled (a quantitative measure) reflect student life within the business school (a qualitative measure)?? Please explain.

    I have no desire to post stats for UH's Bauer business school, but it is sufficient to say that it's right in the middle between Tech and UTD... it outperformed both schools in some areas (like the rating on job placement) and placed lower than both schools in some areas.
    Last edited by totheskies; 30 March 2009 at 04:56 PM.

  31. #331
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    White Rock Lake/Casa Linda
    Posts
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by totheskies
    Whoa... wait a minute. You should be careful b/c in accusing Someone, you're presenting some pretty shabby arguments for yourself.
    I was clearly accusing him of lying, which he did, by saying Tech had higher research spending, UTD had no Honor Societies, and Tech bus. school had higher GPAs. I said everyone is entitled to an opinion on a subject, but you can't just lie.


    Quote Originally Posted by totheskies
    BTW CalTech and MIT are obviously great schools, but they are the VAST MINORITY of Tier 1 institutions. Most Tier 1 schools are comprehensive universities that have strong programs in most or all of the academic disciplines. If you look at the three Tier 1 schools that we do have in Texas, this should be pretty clear.
    But this is evidence that they CAN and DO exist. Someone says that UTD cannot be part of AAU or tier one because they do not focus on liberal arts, which is untrue. Yes, the 3 current schools are like this, they share that trait, all the more reason to create a tier one school that more closely resembles a CalTech or MIT, not just another Austin or A&M.


    Quote Originally Posted by totheskies
    So at what point does actual will, determination, and success of the human spirit come into play? You're acting like our fate is sealed the second that we step off of the high school stage (if that were so for me, I would have had the AK loaded and ready). And again, SAT scores are a preemptive indicator for student performance. Which means like anything else, it's a gamble that doesn't always work out. Same thing goes for all those kids that get "written off" by their high schools... if you're still learning how to read in 10th grade, the SAT might be a bit of a struggle for you. But that is no indicator of how smart/dumb someone is.
    UTD's excellent student body is more than just the highest SAT scores in the state. It's the high top10% figures, the high GPAs, the MOST National Merit Scholars after Austin and A&M, it's incredible diversity, etc. Only here can people take such a positive aspect and turn it into a negative, nobody has every commended UTD for this, only turned it around and used it as a weapon.

    Yes, some really intelligent people mess up in high school. Tough, people mess up, consequences follow. But it is wrong to use this argument against UTD's student achievements, to discount and dismiss their hard work and accomplishments. People who mess up in high school have a chance, they can go to a school with low acceptance standards, like UTSA, UofH, and Tech, and if they can prove that they can handle it and make penance for poor performance in high school, they can transfer up. But it is still unfair to say that just because some smart people mess up, that UTD is not allowed to boast about it's excellent student body.

    I also don't like this statement because it makes it seem as if you think that UTD students do not reflect "actual will, determination, and success of the human spirit." Maybe it is just the way you worded it, but if that is your opinion, I beg to differ.


    Quote Originally Posted by totheskies
    How does number of students enrolled (a quantitative measure) reflect student life within the business school (a quantitative measure)?? Please explain.
    I only said this to counteract Someone's belief that UTD has no student life and is a void wasteland. He claims that student life is one of the most important aspects of a tier one institution, and that UTD lags here, which I don't believe is true. When only 25% of accepted students enroll, that means that 75% chose elsewhere. Apparently Tech was just not a big enough draw for 75% of students accepted. So how will they attract top talent in the future? This is an important and alarming figure.

    I don't think this debate should get personal, but I feel it is trending that way. I don't have any animosity and I think we should try and cool things down a bit, we all obviously have a vested interest in the outcome of this situation. But I stand by the fact that my arguments are valid, and they are not "shabby." Everything positive said about UTD has been spun into a negative. I personally enjoy "walking SAT score" to "Chess Factory," but any stereotype should not be taken lightly. I could say a few things about Tech and UofH students, but I reserve them because I don't think it's proper conduct, let us all be reasonable here and keep things real and true.


    ----
    Last edited by Matt777; 18 March 2009 at 03:35 PM.

  32. #332
    LH Copycat Columbus Civil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    LH
    Posts
    5,588
    I won't take UTD seriously until they field a football team.
    Dallas uber alles

  33. #333
    Low-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt777
    I was clearly accusing him of lying, which he did, by saying Tech had higher research spending, UTD had no Honor Societies, and Tech bus. school had higher GPAs. I said everyone is entitled to an opinion on a subject, but you can't just lie.

    But this is evidence that they CAN and DO exist. Someone says that UTD cannot be part of AAU or tier one because they do not focus on liberal arts, which is untrue. Yes, the 3 current schools are like this, they share that trait, all the more reason to create a tier one school that more closely resembles a CalTech or MIT, not just another Austin or A&M.
    Correct, and I'm certainly not discounting that fact in the least. I'm in full support UTD gaining that distinction, but I'm also of the opinion that it could benefit from increased focus within the liberal arts and humanities. I think it's important to mention a couple of things...

    1) MIT and CalTech are both private institutions. As you know, private schools are run by private funds, so they can basically do what they want. But in making the case for Tier 1 elevation/AAU membership, UTD is going to be evaluted based on the trends of other public institutions, b/c that is what it is classified as. Nine times out of ten, a public instituion (at the level that UTD aspires to be) is going to have a broader base of degree offerings and instructional programs. So if your school considers them as models for Tier 1 achievement, that will be something to consider... UTD would be the first public school that has a predominant focus on science, technology, engineering and business. Not saying it won't happen but there's no precedent for that yet.

    2) MIT seems to place a pretty significant value on the Humanities and Arts... enough value to offer full undergraduate programs in Music and Theater, Philosophy, Women's Studies and other academic disciplines (judging by the variety of degrees and departments within MIT's HASS, it appears to be a broader offering than UTD-SAH's 11 programs). CalTech DHSS's website is a little confusing, so judge for yourself on that. It appears to be "comparable" to the degree offerings at UTD. In either case, both schools... for all of their strength in science and technology, seem to stress the arts and humanities as a vital part of their educational institutions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Matt777
    UTD's excellent student body is more than just the highest SAT scores in the state. It's the high top10% figures, the high GPAs, the MOST National Merit Scholars after Austin and A&M, it's incredible diversity, etc. Only here can people take such a positive aspect and turn it into a negative, nobody has every commended UTD for this, only turned it around and used it as a weapon.

    Yes, some really intelligent people mess up in high school. Tough, people mess up, consequences follow. But it is wrong to use this argument against UTD's student achievements, to discount and dismiss their hard work and accomplishments. People who mess up in high school have a chance, they can go to a school with low acceptance standards, like UTSA, UofH, and Tech, and if they can prove that they can handle it and make penance for poor performance in high school, they can transfer up. But it is still unfair to say that just because some smart people mess up, that UTD is not allowed to boast about it's excellent student body.

    I also don't like this statement because it makes it seem as if you think that UTD students do not reflect "actual will, determination, and success of the human spirit." Maybe it is just the way you worded it, but if that is your opinion, I beg to differ.
    Yeah, I really don't like your wording here either... it seems to suggest that UTD students are far better than students at other Texas institutions. I would definitely not agree with you on that point. Especially considering that I'm one of the students that didn't mess up in high school. According to the information that you've placed on here, I could have attended UTD without any problem. But that's not what I wanted to do. Oddly enough, my little degrees seem to have worked well for me... I hold a full-time job at UofH... I've performed with the Houston Grand Opera, Austin Lyric Opera, Hot Springs Music Festival, Houston Ballet and Interlochen Festival Orchestra and Chorus. Seems like my degree from "lesser institutions" have served me quite well so far.



    Quote Originally Posted by Matt777
    I only said this to counteract Someone's belief that UTD has no student life and is a void wasteland. He claims that student life is one of the most important aspects of a tier one institution, and that UTD lags here, which I don't believe is true. When only 25% of accepted students enroll, that means that 75% chose elsewhere. Apparently Tech was just not a big enough draw for 75% of students accepted. So how will they attract top talent in the future? This is an important and alarming figure.

    I don't think this debate should get personal, but I feel it is trending that way. I don't have any animosity and I think we should try and cool things down a bit, we all obviously have a vested interest in the outcome of this situation. But I stand by the fact that my arguments are valid, and they are not "shabby." Everything positive said about UTD has been spun into a negative. I personally enjoy "walking SAT score" to "Chess Factory," but any stereotype should not be taken lightly. I could say a few things about Tech and UofH students, but I reserve them because I don't think it's proper conduct, let us all be reasonable here and keep things real and true.
    "Why lower overall quality to offer degrees that are in low demand these days anyway, liberal arts degrees are less popular on the whole pay less. Business and the sciences are becoming more popular."

    The only reason that I used the term "shabby" is because this statement is ill-supported. In order for this to be true, we would have to have evidence that shows science and business studies are growing at a significantly faster pace than arts and humanities studies. This may be true for UTD, but I am quick to question that assumption for the rest of the country. I would love to see some facts to support this statement, which would thereby render my response to be "shabby".

    I wholeheartedly agree with you, and I'm not trying to be personal. But it's also a positive thing if we can debate using factual information. Nowhere in my posts have I sought to demean UTD students, or devalue their knowledge acquisition, high incoming credentials, or job prospects. But (like UH, UTA, UTEP, UTSA, and UNT) UTD is not perfect, nor is it at the current acceptable level for a Tier 1 institution. So in the interest of improvement for all, I feel that this discussion is valid.
    Last edited by totheskies; 18 March 2009 at 05:46 PM.

  34. #334
    High-Rise Member AndyIvey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Lakewood Heights
    Posts
    705
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt777
    Why all of a sudden do Tech and UNT want to do more research?
    1) Free money
    2) There are serious researchers at TTU and UNT just like UTD. The difference is that TTU and UNT have a larger number of programs asking for money.

  35. #335
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    White Rock Lake/Casa Linda
    Posts
    334
    Some great new research coming out of UT-Dallas. After pioneering artificial muscles made out of nanotubes, UTD researchers have now created super-strong, ultralight muscles made of carbon nanotubes capable of functioning in the most extreme cold or heat. Supposedly, these structures are gel-like, but are stronger than steel.



    Quote Originally Posted by Scientific American
    Flex Appeal: Researchers Create Carbon Nanotube Muscles

    Researchers test a new buff and tough material that expands or contracts when an electrical charge is applied and is able to withstand blazing heat and freezing cold

    By Larry Greenemeier



    ARTIFICIAL MUSCLE: This scanning electron micrograph shows a carbon nanotube sheet being drawn from a cluster of nanotubes (also referred to as a nanotube forest). An artificial muscle made from a sheet of these carbon nanotubes can operate at extreme low temperatures that would cause other artificial muscle systems to freeze and at very high temperatures that would cause other muscle systems to decompose.
    © MEI ZHANG

    Researchers for decades have been developing polymers and other materials they hope to someday use to create artificial muscles that, when given an electrical charge, mimic the real thing more cheaply and effectively than the hydraulic systems and electric motors used today. A group of scientists at the University of Texas at Dallas' Alan G. MacDiarmid NanoTech Institute reports in Science today that they have demonstrated a fundamentally new type of artificial muscle, consisting almost exclusively of carbon nanotubes, which can operate at extreme low temperatures that would cause other artificial muscles systems to freeze and at very high temperatures that would cause other muscle systems to decompose.

    Study co-author and institute director Ray Baughman, a chemistry professor, says such a lightweight, low-density artificial muscle able to endure temperatures between liquid nitrogen (-321 degrees Fahrenheight, or -196 degrees Celsius) and the melting point of iron (2,800 degrees F, or 1,538 degrees C) could be used to move joints, arms and other components of structures for space, aerospace, and planetary exploration, where a hostile environment prohibits use of any other type of actuating material.

    Although artificial muscles generally operate on the same principal as animal muscles, the carbon nanotube artificial muscle is not likely to be used in prosthetic limbs or to replace tissue. "The high voltages used for actuation eliminate the possibility of tissue replacement," Baughman says, adding that prosthetic limbs do not need the rapid response rate or ability to endure extreme temperatures that the new material possesses. Other types of artificial muscles, particularly those that transform the chemical energy of fuels into mechanical energy are better suited for prosthetics, he adds.

    The new artificial muscle is actually a transparent "aerogel" sheet (so called because most of the volume in the sheet is either air or vacuum). The aerogel consists of aligned carbon nanotubes that run through the material: The sheet's "specific strength" (strength divided by density) exceeds that of the strongest steel plate when an attempt is made to stretch it in the same direction that the nanotubes are aligned, Baughman says. However, the material does stretch more easily when pulled in a lateral direction. "This material has these properties whether or not it is charged," he adds.

    "The main goal of Ray's group is to look at different materials, see if they can get motion and force out of them, and then see how far they can push them," says John Madden, an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

    The aerogel sheet, about 20 microns (one micron equals about 40 millionths of an inch) thick when initially produced and about 50 nanometers (one nanometer equals 40 billionths of an inch) thick when made more dense, can expand up to three times its original size when positive voltage is applied (anything more would damage the material), and shrink back down to its original size when the juice is shut off. This expansion comes from the repulsive forces the carbon nanotubes generate (pushing them farther apart) when electricity is applied to the material. The team has "created a material that no one else has created," says Madden, who wrote about the research in a Science article that accompanies the study. "Not only is it light, it's very strong in one direction, but in the other direction it has almost no stiffness. I've never seen anything with as much variation between the directions."

    Since the nanotubes diffract light perpendicular to their alignment direction, the ability to change the density of aerogel sheets and then freeze them in this shape can be used to improve "nanotube electrodes used in organic light-emitting displays, solar cells, charge stripping from ion beams, and cold electron field emission," according to the Science report.

    Longer term, the artificial muscle's temperature-resistant qualities could prove useful when exploring other planets. "You may need this if you want to change the orientation of solar cells used to power a spacecraft while it's traveling through the low temperatures of space," Baughman says. In addition, a satellite, exploratory rover or spacecraft using artificial muscle made from the aerogel rather than a hydraulic system or motor made from steel would be much lighter and require less energy to launch into space. "For applications where you want to minimize weight," he says, "that's where the aerogel would do well."

    The material's low density, however, would be less of an advantage for buildings on Earth, because it would take a lot of aerogel to do the work of a steel beam in a building, for example. "The beam [made from aerogel] might be lighter," Madden says, "but it would have to be a lot bigger."

    Baughman's is the latest example of an artificial muscle; several other types have been in the works for years. SRI International and Japan's Hyper Drive Corp. in December tested a jointly developed buoy-mounted, ocean wave–powered generator off the coast of Santa Cruz, Calif., that used an accordionlike device inside, made from an electroactive polymer artificial muscle (EPAM), to create mechanical energy that was converted into electricity. And in 2005 high-school student Panna Felsen (17 at the time) bested three different artificially muscled robotic arms in an arm wrestling competition. A robotic arm manufactured by Environmental Robots, Inc., (ERI) in New Mexico put up the best effort, surviving 26 seconds, whereas arms from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology's Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research lost in less than four seconds each.
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...-muscle&page=2





    Sources taking note of this discovery:

    Lightest Material Made into Powerful Muscle- Discovery News

    The 7 Coolest Things Online this Week

    Light-as-air, Heatproof Nanotube Muscles- MIT Technology Review

    A Humanoid Robot with Superhuman Strength? Soon, using Carbon Nanotube Muscles




    http://nanotech.utdallas.edu/




    ---------
    Last edited by Matt777; 23 March 2009 at 04:08 AM.

  36. #336
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    White Rock Lake/Casa Linda
    Posts
    334
    And here is a link to the video explaining the new material:

    http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/artificial_muscles


    Lighter than air, and stronger than steel.


    This short excerpt is amazing. The muscles are so thin and light, that when pulled out they float up like smoke, yet they are stronger than steel:
    http://brightcove.newscientist.com/s...id=17037129001

    Apparently this revolutionary material is going to have tons of applications, from walking humanoid robots, to something I heard of making solar panels much more efficient (and maybe less costly I believe).


    ------
    Last edited by Matt777; 23 March 2009 at 11:32 AM.

  37. #337
    Low-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    108
    Cool stuff at UT-D.

    Just bear in mind that I could post a lot neat articles and papers and references in other journals on cutting-edge research at UT Arlington, too. I could clog this thread with such posts.

  38. #338
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    White Rock Lake/Casa Linda
    Posts
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick
    Cool stuff at UT-D.

    Just bear in mind that I could post a lot neat articles and papers and references in other journals on cutting-edge research at UT Arlington, too. I could clog this thread with such posts.
    So could I on UT-D, but this is just now happening and is obviously groundbreaking. This new material could change so many things.

    One article I read, said this could eventually lead to artificial brains, and humanoid robots are likely now. Of course I have no idea how, but it both fascinated and frightened me when I read that..... but I think many groundbreaking discoveries over history have had that effect.



    ---
    Last edited by Matt777; 24 March 2009 at 03:56 AM.

  39. #339
    Skyscraper Member ksig121's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State Thomas Neighborhood
    Posts
    1,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick
    Cool stuff at UT-D.

    Just bear in mind that I could post a lot neat articles and papers and references in other journals on cutting-edge research at UT Arlington, too. I could clog this thread with such posts.
    I would really like to see some of those! Our "major" media outlets in this town are so bad at reporting that kind of thing. I could be wrong, but I think that the average poster on this forum isn't quite "in the know" about some of these scientific journals and some of the really neat ground-breaking research that is going on in Texas.

    We don't need to turn it into a pissing contest. Just raise awareness of what your favorite Texas university is up to on the research front.

    I would love to see some stuff from Tech, UNT, UH and the other state schools as well. I think that raising awareness of these kinds of breakthroughs helps to make the case for pumping more money into these institutions.

  40. #340
    Low-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by ksig121
    I would really like to see some of those! Our "major" media outlets in this town are so bad at reporting that kind of thing. I could be wrong, but I think that the average poster on this forum isn't quite "in the know" about some of these scientific journals and some of the really neat ground-breaking research that is going on in Texas.

    We don't need to turn it into a pissing contest. Just raise awareness of what your favorite Texas university is up to on the research front.

    I would love to see some stuff from Tech, UNT, UH and the other state schools as well. I think that raising awareness of these kinds of breakthroughs helps to make the case for pumping more money into these institutions.
    Quick and dirty response without spending time on this, check-out these links for great stuff. Also, I'll keep this in mind going forward.

    http://www.uta.edu/publications/rese...ndex.php?id=82

    http://www.uta.edu/publications/researchmagazine/2006/

    http://www.uta.edu/publications/rese...zine/fall2005/

  41. #341
    Skyscraper Member ksig121's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State Thomas Neighborhood
    Posts
    1,021
    Awesome! Thanks for that.

  42. #342
    Low-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by ksig121
    Awesome! Thanks for that.
    You are welcome.

    Those publications are designed for the public...good for the layman, which most of us are in most fields.

  43. #343
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    White Rock Lake/Casa Linda
    Posts
    334
    It looks like a new proposal to limit the top 10% rule is closer to reality. It will first only affect UT-Austin, and the article states that it will eventually affect A&M and UT-Dallas.

    This is the effect of not having another flagship, tier one, whatever you want to call it, university in Texas. I don't see any positive affects out of this other than at UT-Austin. Also, out-of-state students would benefit, which is good, but it is still at the cost of Texas students, which is not.

    While there is room at UT-Dallas to grow, I don't think A&M can handle a huge influx of students not accepted to UT-Austin under this new proposal, and these are top 10% students that will be denied.

    Will they choose Tech? Historically, Tech has had a hard time attracting top 10% students, with those students making up 20% or below in the past. Same at UNT and UofH. So where are all these students going to go? Out of state? I thought that is what they are trying to avoid, this "brain drain."

    Anyway, here is the article:


    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6349090.html


    Quote Originally Posted by Houston Chronicle
    Bill changing Top 10 percent law in House's hands
    Measure would let universities limit students accepted under the rule
    By JANET ELLIOTT
    Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
    March 30, 2009, 6:55AM


    AUSTIN — High school students with achievements beyond superior academics will have at better shot at getting into the University of Texas — assuming House lawmakers agree to limit automatic admissions in changes to the top 10 percent law.

    The Texas Senate already has passed a bill that would allow universities to cap admissions under the top 10 percent law to 60 percent of an incoming freshman class. The university would have discretion over the other 40 percent of admissions.

    Now, the issue rests with the Texas House, where lawmakers are likely to suggest restricting automatic admissions to 50 percent.

    The change, if it becomes law, would primarily affect UT’s main campus, which projects that 86 percent of its fall 2009 freshman class will be admitted because they ranked academically in the top 10 percent of their high school class.

    Texas A&M University and UT’s Dallas campus both admitted close to half of their freshmen under the law last fall.


    Admissions officials at UT-Austin have been seeking relief from the 1997 law for years. Kedra Ishop, associate director of admissions, said the change will allow for decisions on a variety of factors rather than filling spaces based solely on class rank.

    “For high school students not in the top 10 percent, but who excel in academically rigorous high schools, who excel in extracurricular activities, who excel in their civic and leadership activities, all of those factors could be used,” she said.

    The UT admissions office recently finished reviewing about 31,000 applications for 7,200 slots. Each file is read by one of more than 40 employees, who examine high school transcripts, SAT or ACT scores, resumes, essays and other information.

    “We read a lot of files but at the end of the day we didn’t have a lot of space for those non-top 10 percenters,” Ishop said.

    Softening the blow

    The bills being debated also would mean that some of those top-ranked students would not get into UT, although they would be guaranteed admission to other state universities. The Senate tried to soften that blow by adding a provision to provide full scholarships to lower-income students who graduate in the top 10 percent.

    The top 10 percent law was passed in 1997 as a way to boost minority enrollment after a court ruling temporarily prohibited admissions officials from considering students’ race.

    The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled that public institutions of higher education could use race as a factor in deciding which students to admit.

    Critics, including Sen. Tommy Williams, R-The Woodlands, say it has led to a “brain drain” of well-qualified students who choose to go to school out of state because they can’t get into UT.

    Supporters of the current law say it has leveled the playing field for students from inner-city and rural schools. Hispanic enrollment at UT’s flagship campus has grown by 7 percent, and African-American enrollment is up by 3 percent, while Anglo enrollment is down 13 percent.

    “Because of our current policy, Texas universities have seen a greater share of geographic and ethnic diversity,” said Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston.

    He said a UT study reported that students admitted under the top 10 percent sustain better grade point averages and maintain higher graduation rates than their peers.
    A matter of timing

    Keshav Rajagopalan, student government president at UT, wasn’t eligible for automatic admission four years ago because he attended a private high school, St. John’s in Houston.

    “What allowed me in was my extracurricular activities, being editor-in-chief of my high school newspaper and an Eagle Scout,” said Rajagopalan, an honors student.

    At the time he applied, automatic admissions made up about 67 percent of the freshman class. Rajagopalan said he might not have made the cut last fall, when automatic admissions reached 81 percent.

    It is unfortunate that non-top 10% students with good non-academic credentials have a harder time getting into UT Austin, however, that isn't the problem. The problem is that Texas does not have enough capacity at it's tier one universities.

    The problem is just being shifted. Now, a non-top 10% student who did many extracurricular activities may have an easier chance, but a top 10% student who was just as devoted to their grades as the other student was to other things is going to have a harder time. Of course there is the issue of how competitive a high school is, and how easy it was to be in top 10%. But that shouldn't mean a top 10% student from a rural school district should be held in lower esteem than a non-top 10% from, let's say, Plano.

    Texas should instead invest in a better higher education system that allows more students to attend a tier one level school, instead of just shifting around who gets in and who is denied.


    ALSO.... I have been reading through the comments on that article, and people are already posting newspaper articles from newspapers in other states who are saying that UT-Austin is going to accept more and more out-of-state students under this law. So, there is going to be MORE pressure on Texas students, and less attending a tier one university. We already only had 2 public tier ones, and now one of them is going to accept even fewer Texan students..... great.........



    -------
    Last edited by Matt777; 30 March 2009 at 01:53 PM.

  44. #344
    Done
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt777
    It looks like a new proposal to limit the top 10% rule is closer to reality. It will first only affect UT-Austin, and the article states that it will eventually affect A&M and UT-Dallas.

    This is the effect of not having another flagship, tier one, whatever you want to call it, university in Texas. I don't see any positive affects out of this other than at UT-Austin. Also, out-of-state students would benefit, which is good, but it is still at the cost of Texas students, which is not.

    While there is room at UT-Dallas to grow, I don't think A&M can handle a huge influx of students not accepted to UT-Austin under this new proposal, and these are top 10% students that will be denied.

    Will they choose Tech? Historically, Tech has had a hard time attracting top 10% students, with those students making up 20% or below in the past. Same at UNT and UofH. So where are all these students going to go? Out of state? I thought that is what they are trying to avoid, this "brain drain."

    Anyway, here is the article:


    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6349090.html
    once again we see where the lack of ability to do basic math and a void in the understanding of history and reality have collided to result in another failed post by you


    in 2008 Tech had 4407 freshmen

    437 were in the top 5% of their class

    497 were in the top 10%

    so nearly 21% of Techs freshman class was in the top 10% or higher

    UTD had 1118 first time degree seeking students in 2008

    from this site

    http://www.utdallas.edu/ospa/stats/d...CDS2008-09.pdf

    UTD had 40% in the top 10% of HS class in 2008......that = 447 students


    so from just basic mathematics someone that has a clue would see that Texas Tech actually admitted only 10 fewer students from the top 5% of Texas high schools than UTD admitted for ALL their 10% ers

    when combined 437 + 497 Texas Tech actually attracted and admitted over 2X the number of top 10% ers than UTD did

    there is a limited number of top 10% students each year......every school in Texas has an equal chance to attract them (barring the fact that UT and TAMU and PVAMU have additional PUF funds to attract students with merit based aid).....and when it is all said and done Texas Tech actually attracted two times as many top 10% students than UTD did....so I would hardly say Tech is struggling to attract top 10% students

    you said it yourself UTD has plenty of room to grow....and you also expressed the great concern of 10% ers leaving Texas......why is UTD and all of its freshman class numbers you toss about not able to attract more that 447 10% ers and why are they not able to grow at a faster pace and prevent students from leaving to other places like OSU, OU and others that do not have those wonderful freshman stats that you toss about for UTD

    again you seem to live in a world where every university can just decide one day to not allow education majors, communications majors, a large pool or arts and liberal arts students and just pick and choose what highly specialized degrees and students they wish to cater too.....when anyone living in reality knows this is not the case

    there will always be degrees and majors that attract students that performed better in high school....but not all schools and especially schools that wish to be well rounded can cater exclusively to those students.....and once you expend to offer degrees that do not historically attract those with the highest class rank or SATs and the larger you grow in enrollment the harder it is for a school to attract students from a limited pool (10% ers) in the same % basis that they did when they were a smaller niche school

    again you clearly are not very cognizant of a time before $79 dollar Southwest air flights all over Texas in a couple of hours, 4 person families with 5 reliable cars, times when most universities were founded, the broader mission that many Texas universities have served before growing to where they are today, basic math, reality, university growth, university funding, and a number of other things I am probably forgetting

    from a limited pool of candidates (10% ers) in an open competition to attract.....Texas Tech was able to attract 2X the number of 10% ers than UTD was

    comparing % in this case is not an equal comparison......if Tech was able to dump half their enrollment and only focus on engineering and the hard sciences so they had an equal enrollment number and an equal focus to UTD then a % comparison would mean more

    and as shown in links above when one compares the Tech college of Business to the UTD college of business and their near equal enrollment numbers Tech actually has the higher SAT and ACT scores and Tech has a higher ranked college of business

    again when UTD is 28,000 students if they still have 40%+ of students coming from the top 10% get back to me.....if UTD ever decides to offer something more than token classes in the arts, liberal arts, or education.....get back to me....until then Tech has 2X the number of top 10% students walking around their campus than UTD does....the competition for them is equal if not weighted to UTD and open to all......there is nothing limiting the enrollment of UTD any more than Texas Tech......they both have the same funding formulas to work with.....Tech is constrained by a history it seems you will never understand from a time when UTD was not even a thought in the mind of some engineers....Tech has always had to serve a broader mission.....Tech has always had to offer the degrees that don't attract the top students.....same with UTA on all accounts......both have grown to offer extremely large Engineering programs, Architecture, Tech with a top 100 business program....the types of programs that attract the top students.....while still offering the other degrees in a large program....like education, many of the liberal arts, arts for teachers, fine arts in general

    UTD was always selective with no concerns for a broader mission, formed after the times of universities NEEDED for a specific region with a broad offering of programs especially education related, had other schools in the area to dump students off on, and only concentrates on a few specific areas

    and yet with plenty of physical room to grow, in a large metroplex and just down the road from some of the more respected public high schools in the USA, a focus on well paying degrees......in a competition where all you have to do is be in the top 10% of your HS class and you can go to ANY public school in Texas no holds barred......when it is all said and done Texas Tech has 2X those students and UTA has nearly the same number of them as UTD does......if they had WANTED to go to UTD......if they had ASKED to go to UTD......if they had just filled out some paper work and signed a few things and sent a small check....UTD would have HAD TO TAKE THEM.....if their CHOICE was UTD.......but 2X as many made a CHOICE for TTU and nearly the same amount picked UTA.....they could have said they were going ANYWHERE...UT, TAMU, UTD, UH, TTU.....any one of them would have HAD to take them.....2X pick Tech over UTD......it seems when offered a CHOICE 2X as many pick Tech from a finite amount of students than pick UTD


    UTA has 409 10% ers so they are gaining on you as well

  45. #345
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    White Rock Lake/Casa Linda
    Posts
    334
    Yes, 2x as many students pick Tech as UTD. You are very right here, and keep bringing that up in defense. And you look at numbers without regard to percentages. HOWEVER, the students applying to and choosing Tech STATISTICALLY lag far behind in top 10%, SAT scores, and high school GPAs, on the whole. Don't try and use the business school numbers to represent the entire Tech or UTD population.

    So for percentages:

    UTD- 42% in top 10%
    Tech- 21% in top 10%

    The only fair way to compare 2 schools of completely different sizes is by PERCENTAGES. Some of the best universities in the nation are small schools, you don't have to have tens of thousands of students to be a top notch university, in fact I would argue the opposite.

    Just because more students apply and are admitted to Tech doesn't make them superior, their credentials are what is important. Collin County College is the choice of 45,000 students, does that make it superior to any of the schools being considered? No.

    Quote Originally Posted by someone
    comparing % in this case is not an equal comparison......if Tech was able to dump half their enrollment and only focus on engineering and the hard sciences so they had an equal enrollment number and an equal focus to UTD then a % comparison would mean more
    Well, part of becoming a tier one school is being selective. The student body is important, what you can learn from peers who are committed to academics is more important than the slackers just there for the ride. With nearly 30,000 students, Tech serves a purpose as a way for many Texas students who might not get accepted elsewhere to get an education, with admissions standards being so lax. But that doesn't match the objective of a tier one school. UT Austin didn't get where it is by accepting anybody who mailed in an app.

    And again, UTD offers many liberal arts degrees, they just aren't as popular as degrees in business, sciences, engineering, and the like. Not as many top 10% students with the highest SAT scores in the state want to pursue a degree in education, but rather engineering, the sciences, pre-med, pre-law, and business, which are UTD's strong points. There are some pursuing education, and there are students at UTD pursuing that. But to constantly rag on UTD for not enrolling tons of liberal arts students isn't fair. Yes it is a different focus, but as long as what the school focuses on is tier one level, I don't see the issue. I would rather go to a school with an excellent program in my degree rather than a school that offers an endless buffet of mediocre programs that may not have good employment prospects after graduation. I have mentioned this before, but I have had Tech graduates as coworkers, in part time retail. Not to say this is the experience of everyone, but it is meaningless to offer every degree imaginable if it isn't going to be a highly regarded program (for tier one schools).


    Anyway, back to the article I posted, I think it is interesting to note that UT-Dallas is being mentioned along with UT-Austin and A&M. Tech doesn't have the problem of too many top 10% students applying, yet. Maybe we will see this number go up once admissions are capped at UT-Austin, but I am sure once A&M and UT-Dallas also cap top 10% admissions, people are going to start noticing the problem of limited capacity in tier one level universities.


    ------
    Last edited by Matt777; 31 March 2009 at 11:56 AM.

  46. #346
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,522
    Who cares what Texas school is better, when we can all agree that OOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUU Sucks!

    We should all be working together, asking the state for more research that could lead to new and exciting advancements in OU taunting. C'mon people, let's get our priorities straight!



    Last edited by incrediculous; 31 March 2009 at 11:13 AM.

  47. #347
    Done
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt777
    Yes, 2x as many students pick Tech as UTD. You are very right here, and keep bringing that up in defense. And you look at numbers without regard to percentages. HOWEVER, the students applying to and choosing Tech STATISTICALLY lag far behind in top 10%, SAT scores, and high school GPAs, on the whole. Don't try and use the business school numbers to represent the entire Tech or UTD population.

    So for percentages:

    UTD- 42% in top 10%
    Tech- 21% in top 10%

    The only fair way to compare 2 schools of completely different sizes is by PERCENTAGES. Some of the best universities in the nation are small schools, you don't have to have tens of thousands of students to be a top notch university, in fact I would argue the opposite.

    Just because more students apply and are admitted to Tech doesn't make them superior, their credentials are what is important. Collin County College is the choice of 45,000 students, does that make it superior to any of the schools being considered? No.



    Well, part of becoming a tier one school is being selective. The student body is important, what you can learn from peers who are committed to academics is more important than the slackers just there for the ride. With nearly 30,000 students, Tech serves a purpose as a way for many Texas students who might not get accepted elsewhere to get an education, with admissions standards being so lax. But that doesn't match the objective of a tier one school. UT Austin didn't get where it is by accepting anybody who mailed in an app.

    And again, UTD offers many liberal arts degrees, they just aren't as popular as degrees in business, sciences, engineering, and the like. Not as many top 10% students with the highest SAT scores in the state want to pursue a degree in education, but rather engineering, the sciences, pre-med, pre-law, and business, which are UTD's strong points. There are some pursuing education, and there are students at UTD pursuing that. But to constantly rag on UTD for not enrolling tons of liberal arts students isn't fair. Yes it is a different focus, but as long as what the school focuses on is tier one level, I don't see the issue. I would rather go to a school with an excellent program in my degree rather than a school that offers an endless buffet of mediocre programs that may not have good employment prospects after graduation. I have mentioned this before, but I have had Tech graduates as coworkers, in part time retail. Not to say this is the experience of everyone, but it is meaningless to offer every degree imaginable if it isn't going to be a highly regarded program (for tier one schools).


    Anyway, back to the article I posted, I think it is interesting to note that UT-Dallas is being mentioned along with UT-Austin and A&M. Tech doesn't have the problem of too many top 10% students applying, yet. Maybe we will see this number go up once admissions are capped at UT-Austin, but I am sure once A&M and UT-Dallas also cap top 10% admissions, people are going to start noticing the problem of limited capacity in tier one level universities.


    ------
    what you don't understand is I did not say 2X as many students.....I said 2X as many top 10% students picked Tech over UTD

    you don't seem to understand how the 10% rule works.....you see there is a LIMITED amount of top 10% students....those students are free to CHOOSE which university they want to go to......there is no limit on how many top 10% students can choose a particular school......you can have 5,000 pick UT......you can have several thousand pick TAMU......and you can have nearly 1,000 pick Tech......what you do not seem to understand is when it comes to top 10% students their options are unlimited.....they get to PICK what school they want to go to.......this has NOTHING to do with the current enrollment of the particular university in question so a % comparison means NOTHING because there is a fixed number of top 10% students for a university to ATTRACT and that is not relevant to the overall size of the university

    so to be clear when offered a CHOICE.......three times as many top 10% students picked UH over UTD, 2X as many top 10% students picked TTU over UTD, and nearly an equal amount of top 10% students picked UTA as UTD

    these students had a CHOICE of what school to go to.....ANY public school in Texas would HAVE to take them IF THEY WANTED TO GO THERE.......and when it is all said and done 2X as many WANTED to go to Tech VS going to UTD

    the only % that matters in this case is the % of top 10% students that picked a particular university out of the total number of top 10% students available.....the % of top 10% students VS total student enrollment does not matter.....because university enrollment is not adjusted relative to top 10% students available or adjusted based on top 10% students admitted

    if there are 10,000 top 10% students available and there are 5 universities after them.....and the top 10% ers can pick any of the 5 universities.......and one university is 1,000 students, another is 20,000 students and the other 3 are 50,000 students.....you feel it is some great accomplishment for the 1,000 person university to ATTRACT 400 of those top 10% students while the other universities split up the remaining 9,600 10% ers.....you seem to feel this shows some type of selectivity on the part of the 1,000 person university based on their % of top 10% students VS their total enrollment

    I say it shows when offered the chance to go to ANY on 5 universities......9,600 students picked some other choice.....the only thing selective about it was that the VAST majority of a finite amount of top 10% students made a personal decision to not choose the school with 1,000 students.......the fact that university is only 1,000 students and this means they have let in 40% of their freshman from the top 10% means nothing because the selectivity of top 10% student % was not based on any action by the university.....it was based on the actions of the 10,000 top 10% students......and based on the fact that 9,600 of them decided to pass on going to the school with 1,000 students

    so again top 10% students are offered a CHOICE......it has NOTHING to do with the enrollment requirements of ANY public university in Texas.....it is a clear state law......finish in the top 10% of your HS class and YOU GET TO CHOOSE WHAT PUBLIC UNIVERSITY YOU WANT TO GO TO.........THE UNIVERSITY HAS TO ADMIT YOU IF YOU ARE IN THE TOP 10%......IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE UNIVERSITY.......THE ONLY THING IT HAS TO DO WITH IS WHAT SCHOOL THOSE TOP 10% STUDENTS DECIDE THEY WANT TO GO TO

    and at the end of the day nearly an equal amount of top 10% students DECIDED THEY WANTED TO GO TO UTA OVER UTD.......AND OVER TWO TIMES AS MANY OF THOSE DECIDED THEY WANTED TO GO TO TECH OVER UTD

    so when it comes to universities attracting top 10% students to their university Texas Tech has attracted 2X as many top 10% students than UTD.......it has nothing to do with total student enrollment.....because total university enrollment is not fixed to total numbers of available top 10% students each year.....on a % comparison of available top 10% students Texas Tech ATTRACTED 2X as many top 10% students from the available pool of top 10% students

    UTD could have had 100% of their freshman class as top 10% students........if that many top 10% students had applied......but only a bit under 500 top 10% students APPLIED, PICKED, DESIRED, WANTED TO GO TO UTD.............over two times that amount of top 10% students APPLIED, PICKED, DESIRED, WANTED TO GO TO TTU

    so to be clear.....when offered a chance to PICK any of 33+ public universities in Texas that they would HAVE TO BE ADMITTED IN TO......twice as many top 10% students picked Tech VS UTD........they could have picked any one of 33+ public universities.....any one of those 33+ public universities would have had to let them in and made space available......it has NOTHING to do with the total numbers of students at that university.......it only has to do with what university they CHOOSE to go to.....and over 2X as many top 10% students found Texas Tech a more attractive CHOICE over UTD.......and nearly the same amount found UTA to be a more attractive choice over UTD......there was nothing selective on the part of any of the universities....it has nothing to do with the universities total enrollment......it only has to do with where those students decided THEY WANTED TO GO....and 2X as many top 10% ers felt Tech was a better choice over UTD....it was THEIR DECISION.....the universities had no say in it.....the students decided....and 2X as many top 10% ers decided on Texas Tech over UTD.....and 3X as many on UH....and nearly an equal number on UTA......so UTD is clearly NOT a top choice for top 10% students......because when it comes to ATTRACTING top 10% ers UT, TAMU, UH, Texas Tech, unt (700), all ATTRACT more top 10% students than UTD

    in the case of top 10% students in Texas....it is a university attracting them....the top 10% students hold all the cards....the decision is theirs....they can pick ANY of the 33+ public universities in Texas and they will be admitted

    so clearly UTD is NOT the top choice in Texas for top 10% students....it is at best 6th behind UT, TAMU, UH, Texas Tech, unt, all by a large margin, and UTD is only slightly ahead of UTA as being the destination university of CHOICE for top 10% students in Texas
    Last edited by Someone; 31 March 2009 at 04:54 PM.

  48. #348
    Skyscraper Member ksig121's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State Thomas Neighborhood
    Posts
    1,021
    Quote Originally Posted by incrediculous
    Who cares what Texas school is better, when we can all agree that OOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUU Sucks!

    We should all be working together, asking the state for more research that could lead to new and exciting advancements in OU taunting. C'mon people, let's get our priorities straight!



    Dude, I love you!

  49. #349
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    White Rock Lake/Casa Linda
    Posts
    334
    Still Someone, the percentages reflect badly. A school can't be tier one without being selective. You need tier one students. If UTD had more applications, it would still only choose well qualified students. This is evident because the freshman class is getting larger every year, but top 10% and SAT numbers are rising. That is how you build a tier one quality student body. Tech would have to drastically change their admission standards, and as you said earlier "dump half" of their students in order to have a well rounded, well qualified tier-one quality student body, no matter what size.

    For example, Rice had 789 freshmen this year, with 85% in the top 10% of their class = 670. Tech accepted around 925 top 10%ers (4407 x 21%), but that doesn't make it a better student body than Rice.

    Again you are using Tech's enormous size to make it seem more competitive. Yes, 925 students in Tech's entering class were top 10% students, but a whopping 3500 weren't.

    So using your math and analysis on the entering freshman classes:

    Tech: 3481 students NOT in top 10%
    UTD: 648 students NOT in top 10%

    So math can work both ways. Percentages are the fairest way of looking at the overall quality of a student body, and I think college board and most ranking systems would agree, because they use percentages.


    --------

  50. #350
    Administrator tamtagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Atlanta - Dallas
    Posts
    13,053
    So is the legislature getting any closer to dedicating resources to facilitate more Tier One ranked universities in Texas?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •