UT may surpass Harvard as the world's richest university

[TKthunder2 4997]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh, I understand.  It would be nice (well, except for the schadenfreude) if A&M wouldn't intentionally shoot itself in the dick, over and over, but I do think it has the most immediate upside should those in power suddenly acquire wisdom and prohibit the inmates from running the asylum.

I crack myself up.

If you give Tech and Houston PUF funds they’ll simply be another version of aggy.  Establishing bullshit satellite campuses to show the higher education committee that they are expanding “for the people” and then simply funneling more money to their main campus. Giving Tech/UH PUF funds would be like giving a teenage girl a black card and dropping her off at a mall (back in 1999).  They will spend money selfishly and for their own personal gain that only benefits the campuses in Lubbock and Houston with only a token item or two that they hold up as proof that they are responsible.

aggy is aggy, let’s not duplicate that fucking mistake again.  If Tech, Houston, UNT/others, wants PUF funds then they need to join UT/A&M’s system.

Tech/UH > UT

UNT/TXSt > aggy

[jimmyjazz 46191]

4 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

If you give Tech and Houston PUF funds they’ll simply be another version of aggy.  Establishing bullshit satellite campuses to show the higher education committee that they are expanding “for the people” and then simply funneling more money to their main campus. Giving Tech/UH PUF funds would be like giving a teenage girl a black card and dropping her off at a mall (back in 1999).  They will spend money selfishly and for their own personal gain that only benefits the campuses in Lubbock and Houston with only a token item or two that they hold up as proof that they are responsible.

aggy is aggy, let’s not duplicate that fucking mistake again.  If Tech, Houston, UNT/others, wants PUF funds then they need to join UT/A&M’s system.

Tech/UH > UT

UNT/TXSt > aggy

Are you reading someone else's posts and quoting me?

[TKthunder2 4997]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Are you reading someone else's posts and quoting me?

I’m bored at a conference, so maybe.

[Bullneck 19212]

4 hours ago, Wally Fairway said:

Horrible idea - there needs to be a point to getting an education. Give them tuition refunds when they graduate, or when they get a job; free college will encourage people to pursue things like International Studies, Native American History, Underwater basket weaving, Poetry and other degrees that don't really push the civilization forward (sorry if I offended any snowflakes)

 

Yeah, sure.  Let's have a degree in shop and small engine repair while we're at it.

[Ghost of LL 15541]

3 hours ago, FWD said:

The UC system has 6 schools ranked higher than UT in the US News rankings. This is an embarrassment for the state of Texas and shows how little the state government values having even one world-class university. With this much money at its disposal, there is no reason UT should not be in the top 25 except for politicians disregard for the value of higher ed.

Oh, just fucking wait.  The numbers I'm hearing is that the Legislature is going to be faced with a budget surplus of around $20 Billion in the next session.  

I've got $100 that says that they still cut higher-education spending.

[FWD 297]

18 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Oh, just fucking wait.  The numbers I'm hearing is that the Legislature is going to be faced with a budget surplus of around $20 Billion in the next session.  

I've got $100 that says that they still cut higher-education spending.

I believe you. Meanwhile, the state of California has a $97 billion budget surplus and has already determined to invest a significant share of that back in their university system. 

It is not a stretch to say the incredible UC system (plus Stanford) are the biggest things keeping California's economy driving in the long-run.

[Pancho 45028]

8 minutes ago, FWD said:

I believe you. Meanwhile, the state of California has a $97 billion budget surplus and has already determined to invest a significant share of that back in their university system. 

It is not a stretch to say the incredible UC system (plus Stanford) are the biggest things keeping California's economy driving in the long-run.

I’ve been working in higher ed in the state of California for a grand total of 2 months, granted at the community college level. I often get asked what are the biggest differences between Texas and California when it comes to higher ed and my response is usually like this:

California politicians want to give money to and create legislation for higher ed and its students. Texas politicians constantly say “how can we take money away from you again?”

 

The state of California has been losing students over the last several years yet they are still pumping money into higher ed.  

[YGIFS 19452]

44 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Oh, just fucking wait.  The numbers I'm hearing is that the Legislature is going to be faced with a budget surplus of around $20 Billion in the next session.  

I've got $100 that says that they still cut higher-education spending.

Why you so goddamn pessimistic?  I promise you that $20mm from that surplus will be spent on higher education!  Mainly Civil Engineering.

[jimmyjazz 46191]

57 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Why you so goddamn pessimistic?  I promise you that $20mm from that surplus will be spent on higher education!  Mainly Civil Engineering.

. . . and it will still fall down in a heavy wind gust.

[tx 3 putt 77463]

will the UT Austin student population ever grow ?

this state is only getting bigger 

[YGIFS 19452]

Well, let's see.  They don't have the money, the classroom space, the professors, the staff, the infrastructure, the parking, the public transportation, the legislative support, the grant dollars, the utilities, nor the desire.  But other than that, we should totally do it.   

[ButtFumble 5183]

these articles are fucking terrible for UT Austin and the system fucks themselves and UT Austin by putting the value of the entire system endowment in one basket for reporting purposes and it leads to totally stupid shit from financial fucking idiots

1. a very large portion of the PUF is the endowments of individual universities and health science centers in the UT System.......thus that money means nothing to UT Austin (other than the UT Austin portion of it) and never will and should not be discussed at all when discussing UT Austin

2. as to "free tuition" that is simply not possible.....the UT Austin budget is 3,366 billion dollars and 20% of that or $673,200,000 comes from tuition while 12% or $403,920,000 comes from the PUF/AUF

3. the PUF endowment pays out 5% of a rolling 7 year average of the endowment and 5% is what the long standing "rule of 5" (now often the "rule of 4") is for investing and keeping up with inflation

that that means is you have say $1 million dollars as a retired person and you invest it in some relatively safe investments properly spread to protect yourself......you should be able to spend 4% to 5% of the value of that each year and maintain your yearly income with inflation......so you can spend $40,000 to $50,000 per year and in 10 years after inflation you can still be spending 4% to 5% of the value of your investments and that spending will allow you to keep your income up with inflation

yes with the financial managers that UTIMCO has and the large amount of money they can take some risk, but risk have ups and downs too that is why it is a 7 year rolling average

4. here is the way the UT System really really fucks themselves and UT Austin by placing all the PUF assets in one basket for reporting purposes

in Texas universities are primarily funded annually using two formulas that are based around enrollment, degree type as in the field of study, and degree type as in undergrad/masters/professional/doctoral

one formula is I&O (Instruction and Operation) that covers the cost of professors and another staff to teach and run the university

the other is Infrastructure.....it is what pays the light bills, maintains the buildings and classrooms and labs ect

in Texas 100% of all public universities get their I&O funding from general state revenues IE money from yearly taxes

Infrastructure is different......non-PUF participating universities get their Infrastructure formula funding from general state revenues also

BUT for PUF participating universities their Infrastructure formula funding comes from the AUF.....the same exact formula is used, but the source of funds is different non-PUF is general state revenues while PUF participating is from the rolling average payout of 5% of the value of the PUF

so what that means is when people see all that money in the endowment they almost always think that is belongs to UT Austin (it does not nowhere near all of it does) and they do not understand that the annual payout from that PUF endowment covers formula infrastructure funding that UT Austin and the other PUF participating universities and health science centers would otherwise get from general state revenues of the PUF did not exist

so really a very large % of the PUF endowment does not belong to UT Austin at all and a very large portion of it covers formula infrastructure funding for 20+ universities and health science centers instead of general state revenues having to cover that.....so a very large portion of the PUF is really an endowment that lessens the burden of formula infrastructure funding on general state revenues each year and it is not at all any "extra" money for UT Austin or any of the PUF universities and in fact it is an endowment that just makes it less of a burden to cover that funding for general state revenues......but stupid articles like this never point that out (nor do those that write them remotely know that or understand that) they just talk about "Texas is rich" with "Texas" being UT Austin

it is totally and completely fucking stupid that the UT System continues to do this and it is highly detrimental to UT Austin in particular and it constantly places UT Austin and their budget and funding under attack for no reason

there is one other way that universities are funded as well and that is for "new buildings" or "new land" and again this is based on enrollment GROWTH and the specific types of degrees and level of degree offered.....and in this case it is not always funded and it is not always funded biannually

for non-PUF participants the money is from the HEF funds.....in the past the HEF had some "endowment dollars" but that was poorly funded and that money was taken and placed into the NRUF endowment now HEF funds come from general state revenues

so is a non-PUF participating university has had a lot of growth in engineering enrollment (like say Texas State with new engineering programs) they are going to need new lab spaces and spaces for engineering type things that are expensive to build out....the HEF formula will look at their current space utilization and their growth and needs and allocate money for NEW buildings.....or say Midwestern now a part of the TTU System starts to have a lot of liberal arts growth (as the only public liberal arts university in Texas) well that takes less expensive buildings than engineering does, but the HEF formula will look at space utilization and enrollment growth and allocate money for NEW buildings

for PUF participating universities the same formula is used, but the funding is not from the HEF (or really general state revenues) that money comes from the PUF/AUF.....so again a large portion of the PUF simply prevents The State of Texas from having to cover formula allocations for new buildings to keep up with enrollment growth at the PUT participants.....so that money should never be looked at as an "endowment" that is of any benefit (especially any extra benefit) to any PUF participating university or especially for UT Austin because it is money that covers formula funding that would otherwise come from general state revenues

5. as to post #19 I cannot say this for sure, but remember people that generally report on "financial things" are generally financially illiterate.......I believe (I could be wrong) what actually happened with those monies made available for scholarships ect is that the UT System because of the massive budget they have and because of the massive amount of infrastructure projects they have at any one time there are monies that have come from the PUF/AUF, but they are no longer considered a part of the PUF/AUF because they have been allocated for specific projects......but because some of these projects are massive like a new sports arena or a stajium addition or a new medical school (or two with RGV included) you have very large amounts of allocated dollars that are in various accounts waiting to pay for projects, but while they are allocated and waiting to pay for those projects (in installments based on completion goals for each project) that money is still invested to earn a rate of return.....in turn the returns from that invested money is not really spoken for and has no real allocated use......thus it is available for various things like scholarships or hiring top faculty ect

an alternative to this is because the system is so large and they have such a massive bonding capability (and the top rated short and long term bond rating) when they go to build a project they can sell the bonds and collect 100% of the money for that project yet that project might take 2 years to complete and the system has immediate access to that bond money, but will not fully be paying for that project until it is completed.....so again that money is invested and the return on it is available for any use the system sees fit 

it is much more complicated than that because there are short and long term bonds involved, but the gist of it is when you have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of construction projects going on continuously and at some point you have to "allocate money" towards that or "sell bonds" and yet there are lag times involved and a highly competent investment management team in place you can have returns on money that is allocated and yet not fully spent that adds up to very large amounts of money.....there is even the more simple chance that some bonds were refinanced at a lower rate and the savings from that refi is again "found money" that is not spoken for nor does it have restrictions on the use of it and the system can use it for what they feel is the best option

but the main point is that money almost certainly did not just come "from the PUF" against what the law allows for and people reporting on things like this are too lazy and stupid to ever come close to finding the actual facts

6. as to post #38 TWU is no longer a system they went back to one university covering all of their components a while back

and while merging some university systems would help in a lot of ways there is not close to enough money in the PUF to make a major difference for a large number of schools to be placed in the UT System and then start taking from the PUF and thinking they would get large amounts of meaningful new funding.....unless UT Austin specifically was to do with a great deal less funding and the reality is the "excellence" funding that UT Austin gets after formula infrastructure funding, UT System operations and "HEF like" funding is not a massive amount of "treasure bath RICH RICH RICH" money for UT Austin and UT Austin uses those "Excellence" funds extremely efficiently and has for a long time......again that is the massive disservice that the UT System does to UT Austin by listing the total PUF assets all as one endowment and letting most people out there think the vast majority of that belongs to UT Austin......it is not remotely the case 

the reality is the State of Texas needs to place a great deal more money in the NRUF (the endowment that was created to get more Texas emerging research universities to AAU like metrics and that is severally underfunded)  and they probably need to make another endowment that is well funded that doles out money based on degree completion success rates or other meaningful metrics

Texas simply needs to spend more money in higher education not sitting around looking at how to destroy the PUF and turn it into an underfunded pile of dwindling cash that delivers far too little to far too many.....and the best option is to do what was done in the past and that is put money away in endowments that provide funding based on meaningful metrics and outcomes and helps protect that funding from the ups and downs of state budgets as the PUF has done so well 

7. as to post #42 I do not see how there is room in the area around the Dell Med School to come close to housing even a small portion of MD Anderson and I don't think abandoning all of the other medical infrastructure in the TMC would be a wise move.....the dumb fucks leading Houston right now might find a way to fuck it all up and let it happen, but it would be a mistake in the long run and I think long term there would be major growth constraints and a great deal of loss of collaboration and what is the UT System going to do with all the space they own in Houston

8. post #45 to be fair most other systems in Texas have only a flagship that comes close to being the size needed to be a major research university for Texas Tech Angelo State has done extremely well under their management, but it is nowhere close to needing to be much more than it is now as far as research and they only just added Midwestern

the Texas State System actually does not have a flagship and again SHSU, Lamar, and Sul Ross are not in a position to be elevated to a major research university

the UH System has completely fucked the management of UHCL though especially when you look at when it was founded and why it was founded and compare that to the same exact thing for UTD......dumb fucks from UH will point to "PUF", but UTD does not get any funding benefit from being a part of the PUF they get the same funding they would get if they were not in the PUF it would just 100% come from general state revenues instead of some of it from the PUF/AUF.....but the dollar amounts would not change.....the ego and shitty management of The UH System and the main campus has fucked UHCL and Houston general by holding UHCL back from any meaningful collaboration with NASA....they have done so shitty that UHCL should be moved to the UT System and UHD and UHV (they have also fucked over UHV recently) would be moved to the Texas state System and UH should go back to being a single university not a system.....UHV wanted to leave the UH System, but aggy declined to pick them up 

9. as to post #50 part of the issue is the UT System allowing the PUF to be reported the way it is.....it makes it almost impossible for UT Austin to look for more state funding because everyone simply looks at the PUF and says "yew rich dawg".....when in reality UT Austin is funded at a lower level than many of their peer universities all inclusive of state funds and PUF funds

 

10 as to post #60 UT Austin does not need to grow....the space on campus is FULL and yes this was back during the time of showing up to "The Drum" and waiting hours and hours and trading stickers with people to get classes, but Minnesota and some other universities did a study and determined that about 48,000 students is the best size for a major university

this was based on continuity of learning and other factors.....you have colleges, schools, departments ect......you want all of those to be large enough (as a major research university) to have economy of scale for research and cost control, but you do not want so many faculty and so many students in each degree program that you are not putting out a consistent product with come control over the level of teaching and knowledge

classes of 300 suck cocks and if you have a ton of faculty to reduce the size of those classes you get to where you might not have a consistent control of the quality especially in lower level classes and even into higher levels of classes so that students are coming out with the same level of knowledge and skill

so the answer to that is to broaden the entire university and the degree offerings and more colleges, more schools, and more departments.....but you can only do that to a degree.....UT Austin should not be offering a large land grant university degree program.....Austin and the area around it is not farming country and while it is ranching country so is pretty much everywhere in Texas.....so that limits some things that a university like Florida, tOUS, Minnesota, Arizona and a few others offer......schools that are both the arts and sciences and the land grant universities in their state and thus they have another large "college" level of schools and departments to enroll thousands and thousands of more students...UT Austin can grow some with the med school, but that is limited 

in addition as we see with U Phoenix on The Brazos their stated "goal" from john not-so-sharp is to keep more "top tier students in Texas".......but in reality aggy was already getting a massive number of applicants that were ADMITTED and those ADMITTED students were CHOOSING to go elsewhere already......and I can guarantee you that 100% of those ADMITTED students that made a choice to go elsewhere did not look at aggy and say "well aggy is 52,000 students and that is just too small for me I would go there if it was 66,000 students, but not now it is just too small" .....and more so with their growth for "more good ags whoop" they have turned off even more top students and a greater portion of their enrollment is coming in through blinn team "mini whoop" and other alternate admissions and many of them are not getting into the business and engineering and STEM programs.....and that increase in non-STEM enrollment is why the idiot not-so-sharp had to go beg the legislature to try and get more funding for aggy because  their per student formula funding DECREASED on average because they are enrolling a lot more soft and social sciences and liberal arts students that require lower levels of formula funding.....but not-so-sharp is too stupid to even understand that

UT Austin does not need to grow at all they need to support the elevation of reputation for emerging research universities in Texas and for additional funding for them.....BUT NOT FROM THE PUF instead from NEW MONEY preferably in the form of increases in the NRUF endowment or other endowed funds that pay out based on meaningful metrics

and again even if the money was there for UT Austin the space is not and the dollars needed to create that space and infrastructure are massively wasteful for a bad decision that still leaves Texas with only a limited number of top universities

in addition new students means more students sharing in the UT Austin specific endowment made up of privately donated dollars and spreading those dollars over more students is not a wise decision or a way to continue to elevate UT Austin

[MissingInAction 25202]

And she stepped... on the ball...

[GTX Horn 1710]

16 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

If you give Tech and Houston PUF funds they’ll simply be another version of aggy.  Establishing bullshit satellite campuses to show the higher education committee that they are expanding “for the people” and then simply funneling more money to their main campus. Giving Tech/UH PUF funds would be like giving a teenage girl a black card and dropping her off at a mall (back in 1999).  They will spend money selfishly and for their own personal gain that only benefits the campuses in Lubbock and Houston with only a token item or two that they hold up as proof that they are responsible.

aggy is aggy, let’s not duplicate that fucking mistake again.  If Tech, Houston, UNT/others, wants PUF funds then they need to join UT/A&M’s system.

Tech/UH > UT

UNT/TXSt > aggy

People complaining about only us a&m being the only school systems with access to PUF funds totally miss the mark because the truth is the state has way too many university systems in the first place. There’s no good reason for the state to have 7 (I think?) university systems. We need serious consolidation in the state’s higher education systems. It’ll be interesting to see what happens with SFA since they’re considering joining a university system. I believe Texas Tech’s Chancellor is an SFA grad, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they joined the Texas Tech system.

[YGIFS 19452]

6 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

And she stepped... on the ball...

Yeah sure, like A&M would ever make the very semi-finals, mind you...

(fun fact, that's Jamie Lee Curtis' little sister delivering that line.  And the mayor from Super Troopers is over her shoulder laughing)

[Samson's Wig 3194]

20 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

We spread out distribution to aggy and they fucked it up so much the state no longer lets them manage their own endowment. Why does this state need SEVEN 4 year university systems (UT, aggy, TT, UH, UNT, TX St, TWU)?  It’s a shit ton of effort/energy duplication for no reason.

Arlington College, State School of Mining and Metallurgy, Edinburg College, Texas Southmost College, and Tyler State College we’re all self governing institutions before joining UT.  Why do you think other institutions can’t do the same?  In your post you talk about football, and that is likely the ONLY stupid fucking reason (athletic pride) that Tech and UH aren’t already UT schools sharing in the endowment and PUF.

The UC system is literally the best university system in the world, and UT is working towards the goal of bringing that same level of regional excellence to the state. Giving TT/UH and others funds that do not support that goal is counterintuitive to The System’s mission.

If you rolled Tech/UH into UT and it would pay dividends on top of dividends immediately.  TTHSC-El Paso could work hand in hand with UTEP on research and community care, and Houston/UTHSC-Houston could do the same.  Both schools would be able to work on a long term vision for research and regional growth. UT’s best and brightest in energy (O&G and clean) research could help put TT on the map and UH would host UT space/aerodynamics programs at their Clear Lake campus while working closely with NASA, or host UT’s marine biology research out of Port A. Traveling professors doing research or consulting could would be able to stay in system and teach in Lubbock/Houston and raise those school’s academic profiles with higher quality staff.  Initiatives like Tech’s vet school would have UT’s full support and funding and they would be able to override the aggy veto with ease.

Their are many MANY reasons why this is a great idea and the only reason this hasn’t already happened is that PRIDE is fucking them up.  The answer is amazingly simple for all but the simpleminded who accuse others of arrogance.

There's that arrogance I referenced.  It's shortsighted and complete UT tunnel vision.  I get it, but I don't agree with it.   Perhaps I'm simpleminded, but you've got your lips planted on your own ass.  And your solution to roll fully developed systems under the UT wing, for reasons, (which some goob always brings up in these discussions) is about as simpleminded as it gets.  

[YGIFS 19452]

I don't think they should be rolled up under UT System, but this "limited government/fiscally responsible" state is fucking moronic to have 7 stand-alone systems.  It's a big state, I get it.  But last I checked-California, New York, and Florida ain't exactly the size of Rhode Island with the population of Wyoming.  And they get by with two systems (California's both being incredibly exceptional at what they do).  

Never mind the redundancies of finances and staff.  spoiler alert---it costs us billions extra to maintain all that staff and lost costs.  

Just put on your glasses and look at the real estate.  That should be your first visual clue 7 systems is fucking stupid.  Plain and simple.  Does Texas State need a $12mm tract of land in the heart of downtown Austin?  Fuck no, you can put it in an office park outside San Marcos just as easily and no student's education would suffer.  UH System, Texas Tech System, UNT System, and Texas State combine to take up hundreds of thousands of square feet in prime locations (for their regions) which costs tens of millions in deferred maintenance each year.  Each with their own parking bullshit, security staff, utilities, custodial, and oh yeah----------hundreds of redundant positions that could be cut overnight, saving tens of millions of dollars that could be returned to the campuses for instruction and academic facilities.  

We need 3 systems.  Period.  We won't do it though because of how rigorous a people we Texans are at efficiency and stretching resources and hate bureaucracy.  

[TKthunder2 4997]

32 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

There's that arrogance I referenced.  It's shortsighted and complete UT tunnel vision.  I get it, but I don't agree with it.   Perhaps I'm simpleminded, but you've got your lips planted on your own ass.  And your solution to roll fully developed systems under the UT wing, for reasons, (which some goob always brings up in these discussions) is about as simpleminded as it gets.  

What is the reason this state needs 7 university systems?  You’re saying you don’t agree and we’re being shortsighted but you offer no supporting arguments for your position.  What state has a world class higher education system and how are they managed?

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

9 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

these articles are fucking terrible for UT Austin and the system fucks themselves and UT Austin by putting the value of the entire system endowment in one basket for reporting purposes and it leads to totally stupid shit from financial fucking idiots

1. a very large portion of the PUF is the endowments of individual universities and health science centers in the UT System.......thus that money means nothing to UT Austin (other than the UT Austin portion of it) and never will and should not be discussed at all when discussing UT Austin

2. as to "free tuition" that is simply not possible.....the UT Austin budget is 3,366 billion dollars and 20% of that or $673,200,000 comes from tuition while 12% or $403,920,000 comes from the PUF/AUF

3. the PUF endowment pays out 5% of a rolling 7 year average of the endowment and 5% is what the long standing "rule of 5" (now often the "rule of 4") is for investing and keeping up with inflation

that that means is you have say $1 million dollars as a retired person and you invest it in some relatively safe investments properly spread to protect yourself......you should be able to spend 4% to 5% of the value of that each year and maintain your yearly income with inflation......so you can spend $40,000 to $50,000 per year and in 10 years after inflation you can still be spending 4% to 5% of the value of your investments and that spending will allow you to keep your income up with inflation

yes with the financial managers that UTIMCO has and the large amount of money they can take some risk, but risk have ups and downs too that is why it is a 7 year rolling average

4. here is the way the UT System really really fucks themselves and UT Austin by placing all the PUF assets in one basket for reporting purposes

in Texas universities are primarily funded annually using two formulas that are based around enrollment, degree type as in the field of study, and degree type as in undergrad/masters/professional/doctoral

one formula is I&O (Instruction and Operation) that covers the cost of professors and another staff to teach and run the university

the other is Infrastructure.....it is what pays the light bills, maintains the buildings and classrooms and labs ect

in Texas 100% of all public universities get their I&O funding from general state revenues IE money from yearly taxes

Infrastructure is different......non-PUF participating universities get their Infrastructure formula funding from general state revenues also

BUT for PUF participating universities their Infrastructure formula funding comes from the AUF.....the same exact formula is used, but the source of funds is different non-PUF is general state revenues while PUF participating is from the rolling average payout of 5% of the value of the PUF

so what that means is when people see all that money in the endowment they almost always think that is belongs to UT Austin (it does not nowhere near all of it does) and they do not understand that the annual payout from that PUF endowment covers formula infrastructure funding that UT Austin and the other PUF participating universities and health science centers would otherwise get from general state revenues of the PUF did not exist

so really a very large % of the PUF endowment does not belong to UT Austin at all and a very large portion of it covers formula infrastructure funding for 20+ universities and health science centers instead of general state revenues having to cover that.....so a very large portion of the PUF is really an endowment that lessens the burden of formula infrastructure funding on general state revenues each year and it is not at all any "extra" money for UT Austin or any of the PUF universities and in fact it is an endowment that just makes it less of a burden to cover that funding for general state revenues......but stupid articles like this never point that out (nor do those that write them remotely know that or understand that) they just talk about "Texas is rich" with "Texas" being UT Austin

it is totally and completely fucking stupid that the UT System continues to do this and it is highly detrimental to UT Austin in particular and it constantly places UT Austin and their budget and funding under attack for no reason

there is one other way that universities are funded as well and that is for "new buildings" or "new land" and again this is based on enrollment GROWTH and the specific types of degrees and level of degree offered.....and in this case it is not always funded and it is not always funded biannually

for non-PUF participants the money is from the HEF funds.....in the past the HEF had some "endowment dollars" but that was poorly funded and that money was taken and placed into the NRUF endowment now HEF funds come from general state revenues

so is a non-PUF participating university has had a lot of growth in engineering enrollment (like say Texas State with new engineering programs) they are going to need new lab spaces and spaces for engineering type things that are expensive to build out....the HEF formula will look at their current space utilization and their growth and needs and allocate money for NEW buildings.....or say Midwestern now a part of the TTU System starts to have a lot of liberal arts growth (as the only public liberal arts university in Texas) well that takes less expensive buildings than engineering does, but the HEF formula will look at space utilization and enrollment growth and allocate money for NEW buildings

for PUF participating universities the same formula is used, but the funding is not from the HEF (or really general state revenues) that money comes from the PUF/AUF.....so again a large portion of the PUF simply prevents The State of Texas from having to cover formula allocations for new buildings to keep up with enrollment growth at the PUT participants.....so that money should never be looked at as an "endowment" that is of any benefit (especially any extra benefit) to any PUF participating university or especially for UT Austin because it is money that covers formula funding that would otherwise come from general state revenues

5. as to post #19 I cannot say this for sure, but remember people that generally report on "financial things" are generally financially illiterate.......I believe (I could be wrong) what actually happened with those monies made available for scholarships ect is that the UT System because of the massive budget they have and because of the massive amount of infrastructure projects they have at any one time there are monies that have come from the PUF/AUF, but they are no longer considered a part of the PUF/AUF because they have been allocated for specific projects......but because some of these projects are massive like a new sports arena or a stajium addition or a new medical school (or two with RGV included) you have very large amounts of allocated dollars that are in various accounts waiting to pay for projects, but while they are allocated and waiting to pay for those projects (in installments based on completion goals for each project) that money is still invested to earn a rate of return.....in turn the returns from that invested money is not really spoken for and has no real allocated use......thus it is available for various things like scholarships or hiring top faculty ect

an alternative to this is because the system is so large and they have such a massive bonding capability (and the top rated short and long term bond rating) when they go to build a project they can sell the bonds and collect 100% of the money for that project yet that project might take 2 years to complete and the system has immediate access to that bond money, but will not fully be paying for that project until it is completed.....so again that money is invested and the return on it is available for any use the system sees fit 

it is much more complicated than that because there are short and long term bonds involved, but the gist of it is when you have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of construction projects going on continuously and at some point you have to "allocate money" towards that or "sell bonds" and yet there are lag times involved and a highly competent investment management team in place you can have returns on money that is allocated and yet not fully spent that adds up to very large amounts of money.....there is even the more simple chance that some bonds were refinanced at a lower rate and the savings from that refi is again "found money" that is not spoken for nor does it have restrictions on the use of it and the system can use it for what they feel is the best option

but the main point is that money almost certainly did not just come "from the PUF" against what the law allows for and people reporting on things like this are too lazy and stupid to ever come close to finding the actual facts

6. as to post #38 TWU is no longer a system they went back to one university covering all of their components a while back

and while merging some university systems would help in a lot of ways there is not close to enough money in the PUF to make a major difference for a large number of schools to be placed in the UT System and then start taking from the PUF and thinking they would get large amounts of meaningful new funding.....unless UT Austin specifically was to do with a great deal less funding and the reality is the "excellence" funding that UT Austin gets after formula infrastructure funding, UT System operations and "HEF like" funding is not a massive amount of "treasure bath RICH RICH RICH" money for UT Austin and UT Austin uses those "Excellence" funds extremely efficiently and has for a long time......again that is the massive disservice that the UT System does to UT Austin by listing the total PUF assets all as one endowment and letting most people out there think the vast majority of that belongs to UT Austin......it is not remotely the case 

the reality is the State of Texas needs to place a great deal more money in the NRUF (the endowment that was created to get more Texas emerging research universities to AAU like metrics and that is severally underfunded)  and they probably need to make another endowment that is well funded that doles out money based on degree completion success rates or other meaningful metrics

Texas simply needs to spend more money in higher education not sitting around looking at how to destroy the PUF and turn it into an underfunded pile of dwindling cash that delivers far too little to far too many.....and the best option is to do what was done in the past and that is put money away in endowments that provide funding based on meaningful metrics and outcomes and helps protect that funding from the ups and downs of state budgets as the PUF has done so well 

7. as to post #42 I do not see how there is room in the area around the Dell Med School to come close to housing even a small portion of MD Anderson and I don't think abandoning all of the other medical infrastructure in the TMC would be a wise move.....the dumb fucks leading Houston right now might find a way to fuck it all up and let it happen, but it would be a mistake in the long run and I think long term there would be major growth constraints and a great deal of loss of collaboration and what is the UT System going to do with all the space they own in Houston

8. post #45 to be fair most other systems in Texas have only a flagship that comes close to being the size needed to be a major research university for Texas Tech Angelo State has done extremely well under their management, but it is nowhere close to needing to be much more than it is now as far as research and they only just added Midwestern

the Texas State System actually does not have a flagship and again SHSU, Lamar, and Sul Ross are not in a position to be elevated to a major research university

the UH System has completely fucked the management of UHCL though especially when you look at when it was founded and why it was founded and compare that to the same exact thing for UTD......dumb fucks from UH will point to "PUF", but UTD does not get any funding benefit from being a part of the PUF they get the same funding they would get if they were not in the PUF it would just 100% come from general state revenues instead of some of it from the PUF/AUF.....but the dollar amounts would not change.....the ego and shitty management of The UH System and the main campus has fucked UHCL and Houston general by holding UHCL back from any meaningful collaboration with NASA....they have done so shitty that UHCL should be moved to the UT System and UHD and UHV (they have also fucked over UHV recently) would be moved to the Texas state System and UH should go back to being a single university not a system.....UHV wanted to leave the UH System, but aggy declined to pick them up 

9. as to post #50 part of the issue is the UT System allowing the PUF to be reported the way it is.....it makes it almost impossible for UT Austin to look for more state funding because everyone simply looks at the PUF and says "yew rich dawg".....when in reality UT Austin is funded at a lower level than many of their peer universities all inclusive of state funds and PUF funds

 

10 as to post #60 UT Austin does not need to grow....the space on campus is FULL and yes this was back during the time of showing up to "The Drum" and waiting hours and hours and trading stickers with people to get classes, but Minnesota and some other universities did a study and determined that about 48,000 students is the best size for a major university

this was based on continuity of learning and other factors.....you have colleges, schools, departments ect......you want all of those to be large enough (as a major research university) to have economy of scale for research and cost control, but you do not want so many faculty and so many students in each degree program that you are not putting out a consistent product with come control over the level of teaching and knowledge

classes of 300 suck cocks and if you have a ton of faculty to reduce the size of those classes you get to where you might not have a consistent control of the quality especially in lower level classes and even into higher levels of classes so that students are coming out with the same level of knowledge and skill

so the answer to that is to broaden the entire university and the degree offerings and more colleges, more schools, and more departments.....but you can only do that to a degree.....UT Austin should not be offering a large land grant university degree program.....Austin and the area around it is not farming country and while it is ranching country so is pretty much everywhere in Texas.....so that limits some things that a university like Florida, tOUS, Minnesota, Arizona and a few others offer......schools that are both the arts and sciences and the land grant universities in their state and thus they have another large "college" level of schools and departments to enroll thousands and thousands of more students...UT Austin can grow some with the med school, but that is limited 

in addition as we see with U Phoenix on The Brazos their stated "goal" from john not-so-sharp is to keep more "top tier students in Texas".......but in reality aggy was already getting a massive number of applicants that were ADMITTED and those ADMITTED students were CHOOSING to go elsewhere already......and I can guarantee you that 100% of those ADMITTED students that made a choice to go elsewhere did not look at aggy and say "well aggy is 52,000 students and that is just too small for me I would go there if it was 66,000 students, but not now it is just too small" .....and more so with their growth for "more good ags whoop" they have turned off even more top students and a greater portion of their enrollment is coming in through blinn team "mini whoop" and other alternate admissions and many of them are not getting into the business and engineering and STEM programs.....and that increase in non-STEM enrollment is why the idiot not-so-sharp had to go beg the legislature to try and get more funding for aggy because  their per student formula funding DECREASED on average because they are enrolling a lot more soft and social sciences and liberal arts students that require lower levels of formula funding.....but not-so-sharp is too stupid to even understand that

UT Austin does not need to grow at all they need to support the elevation of reputation for emerging research universities in Texas and for additional funding for them.....BUT NOT FROM THE PUF instead from NEW MONEY preferably in the form of increases in the NRUF endowment or other endowed funds that pay out based on meaningful metrics

and again even if the money was there for UT Austin the space is not and the dollars needed to create that space and infrastructure are massively wasteful for a bad decision that still leaves Texas with only a limited number of top universities

in addition new students means more students sharing in the UT Austin specific endowment made up of privately donated dollars and spreading those dollars over more students is not a wise decision or a way to continue to elevate UT Austin

duh

[ButtFumble 5183]

Texas has 6 university systems

UT, Tech, Texas State, aggy, UH, north Texas state.....TWU is no longer set up as a system their components in dallas and Houston are under the administration of the main campus now

Texas has 3 independent universities, Stephen F. Austin, Texas Southern, and Texas Womens.....there was 4, but Midwestern just merged into the Texas Tech System

there are a number of reasons this happened, but generally it came from universities pulling out of the Texas State System to go independent and then getting into "expansionism" that should have been blocked when it was tried, but shitty local politicians in various areas wanted to waste higher ed resources on generally failed economic development bullshit in the form of slapping up or expanding a university and hoping shit grows up around it......an example of this is the dumb shit going on with the north Texas state system like their failed dallas campus and their total pile of shit law school and a D.O. school that should have remained independent or been merged into one of the larger systems

UH was a city university that the state took over and then (stupidly) allowed to start their local expansionism

TWU and TSU have their "missions" and they "cannot be a part of a system" because well that could get in the way of the "mission"

Tech was built at a time and grew at a time when getting to BFE was a long fucking ways and thus they were allowed to administer themselves and by the time travel was easier (the 80s) well they were big enough to resist UT and Aggy or even more so the Texas State System

the Texas State System was all the "normal colleges" and over time local politicians would push to pull their schools out and allow them to go independent (and often get fucked up in local politics see north Texas state) and then some were merged into the UT and aggy systems when there was a cry to break up the PUF or share some of that money.......which of course simply meant those schools that were merged would get the same exact levels of funding that funding would just come from the PUF in come cases and at the expense of UT Austin and college station and PVAMU "excellence funding".......but really there was no financial gain of any real meaning for doing that, but there was a great deal better management overall especially for those in the UT System

in 5 of the 6 systems the "system" lobbies for all members in the system for funding ect while in the Texas State System with no "flagship" they are a "weak system" which again means no flagship of the system and all the members lobby the legislature for themselves

a simple start would be merge Sul Ross into Texas Tech, close TSU and sell part of the campus to the UH main campus and take the TSU professional programs and merge them into UHD and move UHD into the Texas State System along with UHV and then place UHCL into the Texas State System or the UT System and let that university start working on the mission to collaborate with NASA that the UH System has held them back from all these years so they can try and become a lot more like UTD (UTD being TI and wafer chips and telcom)

close north Texas state dallas, and sell it to DCCCD, close their shittastic law school and system offices and sell them to whoever the fuck, take TCOM and place it in the UT System or maybe the aggy system since aggy seems to have a hard on for Fort Worth now or perhaps even merge it under TWU since they have a ton of medical programs now

this leaves UH and north Texas state Denton as stand alone universities and prevent them from doing any more "expansion" outside their main campus or RENTED facilities or facilities shared with local CCs

so now you have cut two "systems', you have killed off one extremely poor performing independent university that has a long history of horrible administrations, you have built up the Texas State System and you have gotten rid of another university that was never needed and has never done shit of any use, consequence, or meaning other than fuck off state higher ed funds in south dallas

ask Stephen F. Austin what system they want to be in and now you have 4 state systems (UT, Tech, Texas State, aggy), and 3 independent universities UH, TWU, north Texas state and you have killed off two poor performing and duplicative universities (TSU, north Texas state dallas)

start closing down most system centers and selling off the buildings and requiring any future system centers to be built with LOCAL funds for any buildings or they share space with local CCs

close down aggy college station-McAllen, prevent them from ever having a university at disaster city (riverside campus college station) and merge TAMU-K and TAMU-CC into a single school

that would go a long way to saving some money and more importantly it would stop a lot of horribly wasteful local fuckery that has caused The State of Texas to fuck off a lot of higher ed dollars on stupid bullshit and that lets local fuckheads try and claim "territories" to the detriment of their populations at large

make it a rule that no system can start another campus or a system center (independent of shared facilities in a locally owned and paid for building(s) if any of their system members have less than 12,000 FTE students enrolled

[YGIFS 19452]

And the top 4 teams in the ABA get to merge with the NBA.

"WHAT THAT GUY SAID!"    

Well said.  Don't agree with all of it but you clearly thought it out and have some great insight.  

[ButtFumble 5183]

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

And the top 4 teams in the ABA get to merge with the NBA.

"WHAT THAT GUY SAID!"    

Well said.  Don't agree with all of it but you clearly thought it out and have some great insight.  

I would be interested in the parts you do not agree with

and I do understand that is would be very contentious to do some of what I said, but it needs to be done because shit is already out of control and getting worse not batter......time to make "interest groups" unhappy for the better good of all

[Cornpop 230]

2 hours ago, YGIFS said:

And the top 4 teams in the ABA get to merge with the NBA.

"WHAT THAT GUY SAID!"    

Well said.  Don't agree with all of it but you clearly thought it out and have some great insight.  

 

 

[Texas Jeff 1945]

On 8/23/2022 at 11:17 PM, tx 3 putt said:

will the UT Austin student population ever grow ?

Given lots of time, sure.  Project Connect is eventually (like 2040-ish, IMHO) going right next to campus.  You'll be able to get from the IM fields to the courthouse in maybe 20 mins without a car.  I'm not sure if any campus around the state will be in the middle of a better transit system once the rail system is built.  Either UT is going to buy land and box out high tech or high tech is going to move in and put pressure on UT.

UT could buy up west campus or land around these stops to eventually create housing or more campus buildings.  UT still owns the Muny campus, which was originally donated to be used for education.  Someone is eventually going to buy and develop the Austin State School off of 35th.

The area between 15th and MLK south of campus is mostly state office buildings and parking for state office buildings.  Do we need that to be state office buildings?  Low paying jobs in a super expensive area of town?  The state could gradually move out and give UT some room for expansion, but I doubt they will.

Lots of students are arriving on campus as freshman with 20-30 hours of AP credit.  UT isn't teaching as many of the fundamental core classes as they were decades ago.  It's hard to get upper division classes but there are fewer large lecture classes.

I think UT won't expand because they are happy as is.  They get to choose from the best students around the state.  Lots of students are showing up as academic sophomores.  They get a high ranking and an easy to educate population, who are likely to help out with research.  And sending some students to other UT schools helps those schools get better.

Also, LONG term, like 2050-2100, the population of the US and Texas is going to peak and then start declining.  Once it starts down, it won't stop.  You are going to see this in the next ten years as the number of kids in the US of college age drops.  Super long term, we won't need as many colleges.

[ButtFumble 5183]

I need to correct myself it appears that in 2021 TWU was again made a system......I am not sure why this is, but seems like a waste hopefully it is just something for looks and not a reason to hire up a bunch of administrators

as to post #74 I thought I read somewhere that Abbott was looking at moving some state agencies out of Austin specifically to avoid using some of the land they own around 45th and Lamar/Guadalupe......it looks like a lot of that has been privately developed now, but there are still state agencies that could be moved out from around there

there are a massive number of parking garages there near the UT Medical School I am not sure the state would sell those off or trade them or whatever to UT, but who knows in the future

I am surprised the DPS office in Lamar has not been sold off those buildings look dated as hell and aggy designed and that is a massive piece of property

I thought parks and wildlife or something similar was already moved to Waco, but I could be wrong

either way with technology now and as big as Texas is it would make sense to relocate the day to day functions of some state agencies out of Austin simply to get a lower cost work force, share some of those jobs to other places, and free up some space in Austin for other things

[4th_and_18 687]

Certainly not a bad idea, but it would be nice to see schools outside of Austin and UTD rise up the rankings too. I know yall will never be the UC system, but there are far too many resources available for some of the system schools to do as poorly as they do. We have a lot of well performing kids in this state that might not get into UT Austin but that need good options.

Hey, we (or Aggy) may try to elevate SFA soon…does that count?

[4th_and_18 687]

The article states pretty clearly that PUF funds can not be used to offset tuition.   Also what the article completely misses is the fact that this is the endowment for the UT SYSTEM of which there are 250,000 students.  Harvard has 22,000.
. The state constitution allows for those mineral funds to be spent on capital expenses like the construction of classrooms, hospitals and labs, all of which helps keep pace with increasing enrollment. For most of the schools, the funds cannot be spent on daily operations or providing tuition assistance and scholarships.

We get AUF funds in our budget. Or we used to before they were repurposed for student support recently.

[Satchel 6949]

On 8/23/2022 at 2:18 PM, TKthunder2 said:

Which system in this state has raised the academic and research profile of a non flagship school over the last 2 decades?

UT (6) UTD, UTA, UTSA, and UTEP are all Tier One Research institutions.  UTRGV and UT Tyler are tier two.

aggy (4) Tarleton, TAMUCC, TAMUK, PVA&M are all tier two

TX St (1) SHSU is tier two (same as TX St)

Tech, Houston, UNT, TWU (0)

Source?

[TKthunder2 4997]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Source?

https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/lookup/srp.php?clq={"basic2005_ids"%3A"15"}&start_page=standard.php&backurl=standard.php&limit=0,50

[Armybrat 40918]

Well, someday the mineral funds are going to shrivel up like a geriatric’s dick and sag lower than his accompanying balls.

Does the UT system have a plan for that eventuality?

 

[TKthunder2 4997]

1 minute ago, Armybrat said:

Well, someday the mineral funds are going to shrivel up like a geriatric’s dick and sag lower than his accompanying balls.

Does the UT system have a plan for that eventuality?

UT isn’t spending all the money coming in.  The vast majority of it goes into the endowment.  But yes, they are investing in the land in other way, most notably in clean energy (wind/solar) and water conservation as means for the land to remain active revenue producers for the system even after the oil dries up. The money they pull out of out land is also being diversified. They bought a bunch of gold not that long ago which made the papers, but they are also investing in real estate and other traditional options like stocks/bonds.

[Armybrat 40918]

Thanks.
Sounds similar to the Saudi plans when their oilfields run dry eventually.

[williemackgarza 1826]

Well, someday the mineral funds are going to shrivel up like a geriatric’s dick and sag lower than his accompanying balls.
Does the UT system have a plan for that eventuality?
 

Raise the deer lease/cattle lease prices accordingly. I heard if you can get on a UT owned deer leased place its still fairly cheap. Deer hunting is pretty big business nowadays.
Not that I know anything