Go_UTA
-
Posts
237 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Points
0 [ Donate ]
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
GoMeanGreen.com
Posts posted by Go_UTA
-
-
Maybe I'm old school, but I am of the strong opinion that chancellors should step-back and let the institutional presidents run their institutions. I guess it is hard not to try to run things. Although Jackson is plenty busy, their are not that many campuses for him to focus on. A chancellor in the UT System just doesn't have the time to micro-manage policy and direction at any single institution. With small systems, chancellors have more temptations to be busy bodies at the institutional level.
-
So, UNT now has an interim interim president.
If you gotta do it, it sounds like a good pick. He knows the financial big picture and details, which is helpful right now...a loyal soldier, too.
Jackson had this wired and ready to go.
-
GTB that is some outstanding linking/research and you deserve some reputation love from us for it. +1
The Chronicle article mentions that she was written-down in her review for lack of Federal research funding, among a couple of other things. If true, I think it would be complete B.S. to mark her down for that. First, she did increase it. Second, UNT, while superb in quite a few areas, UNT's technical areas are small and still developing. For instance, the College of Engineering is small. You can't expect Federal Funding to explode in this situation.
I think it is going to come-out that there was some disagreement or conflict with the Chancellor's office. We shall see, but that's exactly what I smelled the minute I read about this. The nature of the resignation certainly points to that.
Honestly, I thought she was GREAT for UNT. She understood the big picture. She knew how to run a complex university. And, she was great PR for UNT. She had class, she had style, and the media seemed to really like her.
I was never jealous of Dr. Bataille, because we have a great president of our own. However, I always admired her. She oozed competence. As a Texan and tax payor who likes to see our universities do well (even for some-time rivals), I am sorry to see this.
But, nobody is irreplaceable, either. Also, at least this didn't happen during a legislative session year. Still, it will be a challenge to get somebody as good as Dr. Bataille, IMO, and you hope to not lose momentum during what could be a longer transition than usual.
-
4
-
-
She's been in the job, what?, 3 and a half year? That is a short tenure. She is almost literally giving the 2 weeks notice, which is unusual unless something happened. Usually, in a normal, friendly situation, presidents give a long notice period, which helps with the transition. Something happened. Either 1) she is fed-up with something, 2) is being forced out, or 3) has a better job that she has leave leave now to take. Seemed to me that she was doing a great job.
-
1
-
-
Within the Southland, I doubt UT Arlington would make any trouble for UTSA. UTA would probably be cooperative. Of course, UTA is just one member, and the rest of the membership could have a different approach.
-
Great game, guys. Congratulations.
I couldn't make it, so I kept track by reading the postings on this board. Thanks. (Amazing technology in our hands.)
This series has ALWAYS been crazy and sometimes unpredictable. I'm glad to hear indications of its renewal. It would be nuts not to. Yes, it would be a great idea to get the two small private schools involved in a tourney with us. Makes a lot of sense, but rationality does not always prevail in these matters.
Hope to make to to Denton next year for the game.
P.S. Congrats on the stadium-approval. HKS is the best, so you will get an exciting and first class design. I will want to come to a game and check it out when done.
-
Great looking drawings, guys. If the final product is close to this, you will have something special (wings or no wings).
HKS was absolutely the best firm in the world to choose as architect for this project. They are a world-class firm that also has a lot of experience with sports facilities, e.g., Cowboys Stadium, Pizza Hut Park, Dr. Pepper Stadium, American Airlines Arena. They do it right and make something that has a "feel" that is exciting and memorable for the fans. Of course, I would expect nothing less from a firm that is led by a UT Arlington School of Architecture graduate.
(HKS is also designing our Special Events Center.)
One thing I have noticed with contemporary stadia design is the addition of an imposing "tower building." Once upon a time, you simply stuck a press box on top, with an elevator, if you were lucky. Now, we are getting these visually impressive towers that contain a lot of amenities. You will note that Texas State is adding one to their existing stadium. (Part of the facilities arms war....if you can't pay the players, you've gotta use other means to attract talent - and fans.) Your tower building looks distinctive and contemporary. Extremely nice.
I look forward to checking-out this stadium once its up.
-
I am going to disagree with you on your last statement however, at this point there is little academic difference between UH, TTU, NT and UTA. UTD is in a different zone because of their unique status of being a very engineering oriented school with historically a lot of resources. I don't have any numbers to back this up, but I think the percentage of students on academic scholarships is far greater at UTD than any of the other schools. I agree that UH and TTU have a big advantage in that they serve large areas without the state university competition that exists in the North Texas area and both have much greater lobbying ability than UTA and NT. Likewise UTSA and UTEP also are schools that serve large communities with little direct competition for students. However, it is going to be decades before any of these schools reach tier one status if ever and over that time period I believe that NT and even UTA are almost as likely to be able to reach that standard. One issue all these schools will have is how to be more selective in admissions and still serve the missions given them by the state coordinating board. The number one criteria for tier one status is not research dollars but ultimately the quality of the students attending that university.
Well, GrandGreen, now that you are off your system-concentration kick, which is what I was countering with my posts, you've have put up a pretty good analysis in the above paragraph. Yep, UH, TTU, NT, UTA, UTEP, UTSA and even UTD are, broadly speaking, peers, so academic quality is roughly equivalent. Obviously, each university has its strengths and claims. However, the number one criteria for a "tier one" university is going to be the research (usually measured by total research expenditures or sometimes federal research expenditures), and good students will generally follow that.
There are universities that are emphasizing "access" and research. UTEP and UTSA are trying to do that.
Really, I dislike the "tier one" label, because it is so ambiguous. People can't really agree on what it means. It is too vague.
-
My apologies. I should have typed that the UT System did $2.2 billion in research expenditures in 2008, not $22 billion. This missing decimal point was significant, but I think you still get the idea.
UNTX, I have nothing to get over.
"Tier 1" is a vague, unspecific term, and it means different things to different people. So, it is pointless to getting in a pissing match over an undefined term. However, I am quite confident that UT Arlington will be a national research university. Some people will call it "Tier 1" and others may not.
-
The domination of the UT System is probably more than you think. Taking all UT institutions - health and general academic - research expenditures totaled $22 BILLION in 2008.
However, I never heard of anybody who thought this was somehow a problem. Perhaps second only to the University of California System, the UT System is a national leader in many areas, including research, which is the key thing in how Texas is defining "Tier 1."
To take a few research-related advantages of the UT System:
1) being in the same system enhances the ease of colloboration between member institutions...and the UT System has some absolutely world class medical schools with which to do it. As one example, see some fruits of UT Arlington and UT Southwestern Medical research in this link. (As some of you may know, UT Arlington opened labs at UT Southwestern last year.)
http://www.uta.edu/ucomm/mediarelations/pr...hed-in-PNAS.php (This isn't to say that collaboration could not occur with the UNT System, in fact, UT Arlington does have some things going with the UNT Health unit in Fort Worth.)
The UT System has the reach and resources to initiate special programs that other systems can't:
2) STARS (Science and Technology Acquisition and Retention program). This enables member schools, on a targeted basis, to access funds to attract and retain the best minds, thus enhancing research productivity...in other words, getting and keeping super stars, and, in other cases, highly promising up-and-comers
3) Ignite Texas! This is an initiative designed to bring promising inventions at UT institutions to market as realized products, thus growing the Texas economy.
The above is a quick and dirty response that I think counters the notion that a concentration of research in a single system is somehow a problem when, in fact, it is an advantage. And, anyway, the main thing is the university, not the system. However, in the case of UT, the system is an arrangement which convers big advantages to its members, many of which I have not even touched on in this post.
-
I think in many ways the pick of seven universities is in NT's best interest. Although, I think it was a political sellout; I don't believe UNT had the political clout to make it with a more restricted field. I think the designated colleges should have been Tech, Houston and UNT with the UT stepchildren left out. Not that UTA, UTEP and UTD are less deserving than the others, but I believe it puts way too much resources into one system and at this time tier one funding should be limited to flagships.
Dude, just be glad that UNT is still included in the "emerging research university" classification (something I would not take for granted going forward).
Total Research Expenditures in millions (FY 08)
U of Houston $84.9
UT Arlington $66.7
UT Dallas $59.3
Texas Tech $52.8
UTEP $47.9
UTSA $34.6
UNT $16.8
-
This news release is better.
http://www.uta.edu/ucomm/mediarelations/pr...tion-signed.php
-
--They are dreaming and whoever wrote the bill is likely an idiot that does not even understand the state government he is part of.... As various colleges have been put into the University Lands Fund..(containing lots of West Texas oil money from land owned by the state) their names have been changed to UT-something or A&M something. This started in the 1965 session when Texas Western became UTEP and Arlington State became UT-Arlington. I imagine to be able to draw money from it, they MUST have to have a UT or A&M name since that is how the fund was set up about 150 years ago. No other state has anything similiar because we ( Texas) were an independent nation and kept our public lands as we entered the USA... It is one of the reasons that Texas has been able to not have a state income tax which most seem to have.
Screamer,
No, the name of the university doesn't dictate whether or not it draws from the Permanent University Fund ("PUF"), and the naming of UT Arlington, UT El Paso, etc., was not done to get under PUF.
Simply, the UT System decided to go with PARALLEL NAMING in the mid-1960s. And, this action didn't get anybody added under the PUF umbrella. It wasn't until the mid-1980s that UT Arlington and some other UT institutions were added to PUF. This was necessitated by an event that came out of the blue and which was completely unanticipated beforehand, which was that the ad valorem tax, which was used to fund building construction at UT Arlington for many years, was declared unconstitutional in a court case. For the next several years UT Arlington was forced to go directly to the legislature for new building appropriations. As a solution, Arlington and other UT and A&M schools affected by the ad valorem tax issue were added to PUF. It took a constitutional amendment, approved by a majority of voters, to get this accomplished.
So, having the "UT" or "A&M" name doesn't cause anybody to be added to PUF. It was the wording of a constitutional amendment that passed. It is worth noting that UT Pan American and UT Brownsville ARE NOT under PUF. Simply, they were not in the UT System in the mid-1980s when the constitutional amendment passed. So, to this day, Pan American and Brownsville rely on HEAF funds for construction, just like UNT. Obviously, simply being UT System or A&M System institutions doesn't get anybody in PUF.
Also, I will note that Texas A&M-Kingsville (FKA Texas A&I) is not under PUF and never has been. Also, Tarleton State University, an A&M institution for many, many years, and which does not have "A&M" in its name, receives appropriations from PUF.
-
I think all the schools in the UT system now have orange as their primary color, though many have an accent color.
All the branches of LSU are purple and gold, and I believe some of them also may use Tigers as their mascot,
This builds unity for a system.
Until this decision, the multiple campuses of the North Texas system were going to have nothing in common except the same shared Board of Regents.
The University of California universities use the same colors.
All the UT System schools use some shade of orange in some fashion. (For Arlington, blue is remains dominant in most (but not all) cases. For others, such as UT El Paso, orange is dominant.) Point is, there is a unifying color.
I thought it was a mistake to allow the UNT Dallas campus to go off on their own color scheme. I was surprised when that came out last year. If you want to build a system identity, a system brand (to some extent...because the individual university is still the key), you need a common color scheme. So, to me, it makes sense to nip that in the bud and have them use green.
-
Let's Give a Cheer for U of NT,
Cheer for the Green and White,
Victory's in store, whatever the score,
Our team will ever Fight! Fight! Fight!,
Shoulder to shoulder we march along,
Striving for Vict-or-y.
Playing the game for the honor and fame and
Glory of U.N.T.!!!!!!
U!.....N!....T!....Eagles!....U.N.T. Eagles Fight! Fight! Fight!!!!!
Rick
I'll never forget the last line of this the first time I heard it....it was at Texas Stadium for an f-ball game against us. I was probably in 6th grade....except it was
N....T.....S.....U.....NTSU FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT. Although Texas Stadium had more empty seats for that game than full seats, there were enough of you grouped together to make it sound pretty impressive in the contained, loud space of that stadium. The beat of the music was perfect for NTSU.
-
UTD is an excellent example of what a college can do with the right financial backing. It can be argued that it has not only caught up with UTA and UNT but surpassed them in a lot of areas. There is no reason to think that UNTD can't do the same thing with the continued support of the city and county of Dallas. I think that Dallas' political clout is obvious. As far as a college on every corner, I tend to agree; however I don't think having mammoth universities to serve an area with over 6 million people is necessarily the answer. As far as being a factor in allowing UTA to be more selective, not sure that is going to happen. As a new university with very limited facilities, UNTD could in fact be in a much better position to raise standards than Universities like UTA and UNT who have massive physical facilities to maintain and utilize. Again, look at the UTD example.
A reasoned rebuttal. And intelligent thinking.
However, I disagree.
I don't think it is valid - whatsoever, in any form or fashion - to compare the history and backing of UTD with what has happened so far with UNTD and what is probable to happen going forward.
What has happened in Richardson with UTD is highly unusual in the history of higher education in America. Here, we had a graduate research institution created by Texas Instruments that was taken over by the State. And, the subsequent support has been substantial. This is a situation almost without parallel. This is not me talking, but former UT System Chancellor Mark Yudolf at the last regents meeting in Arlington a couple of years ago. (The video is still available on the UT System website.) According to Yudolf, he can think of only one other such significant corporate-university relationship, and that was with Coca-Cola and Emory (in Atlanta). There is no such sponsor for UNTD and never will be. And, don't count on the City of Dallas for anything. Sure, UNTD will raise some money, but nothing, nothing, nothing like what is being suggested by the UTD analogy.
Also, I do not think UNTD will be in a better position to raise standards than either UT Arlington or UNT. This is because the demographic, or clientele, or target market they are going after. UNTD are going after students who are less academically prepared. This won't be the situation in every case, but, by-and-large, that is the situation. (Now, there might be exceptions specifically for a law school, etc., if that comes about.) This may, as time goes on, give UT Arlington a chance to edge admission standards up (which, in any case, it has been doing). UNTD will be an open admission institution for as far out in time as anyone can see. They will take anybody with a pulse. UT Arlington and UNT are NOT open admission institutions, and admission standards are likely to go only one way - UP - over the next 10 or so years. It won't be anything instant, but having UNTD around to catch all the warm bodies will make it more justifiable for a UT Arlington to take advantage of that.
-
Gray, you are right that "never" is a long time, and I usually don't use that term without some kind of qualification. However, in this case, it is so overwhelmingly obvious that I think "never" is very appropriate. Never, as in meaning, as far as humanly knowable into the distant future.
The thing is, we could have given the southern sector an inexpensive path to a college education without opening a whole new institution. Texas can't go on building universities (or facimiles) on every corner...in every nook and cranny. Unfortunately, that is what we have darn near done.
But, hell, if I put my "me first" glasses on, I see this as good thing for UT Arlington. It will lessen the need and somewhat of a regional obligation of UTA to serve as a "catch-all." Let UNTD serve that group and UTA continue to rationally and gradually increase standards that are appropriate for a university on the "Tier 1" track.
-
Here is an interesting tid bit. Looks like Senator West - the guy who is chiefly responsible for the creation of the South Dallas Pork Project - wanted A&M to run it. A&M was and is surely highly capable of doing so, and doubtless could have, if that had been their choice.
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/m...97/p050897a.htm
If we really wanted to help the college-going population of that region, boy, it sure would have been more effective to create big scholarships and also use the good community college system that is already in place. These other, more effective, measures could have been done for a fraction of the price that it will now cost Texas to run a small college into perpetuity.
They are not independent, yet. There is a lot to do still in terms of accreditations and actually cutting the cord from Denton. And, believe me, this is a big headache and cost in Denton. Your university will be better off the sooner this ridiculous campus is cut away from you...because it is a huge distraction from making Denton better, which is what the State and tax payers deserve and need.
And, no, this campus will never, ever be on par with UNT, UTD, or UT Arlington. Never, even if these 3 stood still for generations, which they most surely will not.
-
The political winds said that someone was going to build a Dallas campus. Would we really have rather had a Texas A&M at Dallas or Texas Tech at Dallas campus? I think the UNT at Dallas is better for us in the long run than those options.
My understanding is that A&M and Tech didn't want this South Dallas situation. (I've seen documentation on that, but didn't save them.)
UT System wasn't interested, either. No, this prize belongs to the UNT System.
-
What keeps Tech going is dedicated alumni.
Tech has an endowment of >$700 million and raises $50-100 million/yr ( NT has about $60 million). Tech alumni giving rate far exceeds most universities. Big 12, 2 medical schools, law school ...
Tech raises $$, That is the difference...
UTA and NT alumni need to step it up..
Of course, what I was addressing was the TT System. Viability as a System. I look at UT and A&M as being real, honest-to-goodness systems. That's a completely different thing from discussion of an individual university. I agree that TT University has some hellaciously strong points, including their fund raising ability. I am envious of them in that department.
I agree that UTA, and almost certainly UNT, need to step it up in fund raising. I know that UT Arlington has made tremendous improvement in percentage of giving indicators over the last several years, but absolute dollars in giving has a ways to go. President Spaniolo has given this a lot of attention, including bringing in the head development officer from Austin College, which knows a thing or two about fund raising. One thing, I expect a $9 million gift to UT Arlington sometime later this year and possibly stretching into next year for a new $34 million Structural Engineering Research facility within the Civil Engineering Dept. This will be a biggie for the institution. I also understand that the groundwork is being laid for a broader campaign.
-
So it would be a North Texas equivalent of the South Texas BoR (when Texas A&I, Pan American University, Corpus Christi State, and Laredo State College were their own system).
I suppose so.
Or something like the UH system in terms dominating a large metro area. Except that there would be 3 roughly major equivalent universities instead of 1 major and a bunch of minors.
One of the quietly stated rationales for the creation of the UNT System - made by the UNT System itself and nobody else that I know of - was to be a receiving ground for more (North Texas) universities if there were a major reorganization. However, that anticipated (or hoped-for) reorganization never came. Not to say there won't be changes some some kind in the future.
But, it is completely a mute point. No way in hell UT Arlington or UT Dallas would leave a superior system for a souped-up UNT System (no offense). Also, we have seen what the UT System will do to keep a university, so there is no way the System would let any of its major universities slip through its fingers. I dunno, maybe if the State gave Texas A&M to the UT System, the UT System might agree to some changes. But, you can see how outlandish that thought is, and I say that Arlington and Dallas leaving UT for UNT is just as crazy.
-
But what keeps the TxTech system viable? Geographic isolation alone?
Good question.
Well, if you ask me, it is a pretty weak system, too. I don't think it is all that viable. It's pretty much a one horse show. However, since they dominate a huge region of Texas and have some clout, that probably makes them a survivor as a system. Adding Angelo State, a nice university with a long history, added some credibility and strengthened their claim to a lot of West Texas. If the Texas State system were split, it might make sence to add Sul Ross to the Tech System...maybe some others.
Generally, Systems are super eager to add to their fleet. That showed itself to be true relatively recently. In the early 2000s, when there was serious rumbling from area legislators, such as Senator Chris Harris (and other leaders) to move UT Arlington out of the UT System. Every System in the State (except the Texas State System) was quietly jockeying for the Arlington campus. Even the U of H, and, of course, Tech. I thought that was pretty interesting. I saw evidence of this myself in the minutes of an A&M System Regents' meeting. And, of course, the UNT System administration really wants to add, as witnessed by their efforts to join forces with South Dallas politicians such as Senator Royce West to create a second university for its system. (It's hard to claim to be a system with one university!) Of course, what the UNT System would really like is to add UT Arlington and UT Dallas; create a true University of North Texas System. (Of course, that won't happen. You know what they say about Hell freezing over. When that got out in the public, then UTA president Robert Whitt suggested in the press that UNT be the university to do the joining.)
-
degree.
Edit -- Honest question. Is it as confusing for native Texans as it is for me that there seem to be about 45 different systems in Texas? Most states have a "U of" and a "state U" system. Texas has UT, A&M, Texas State, UNT, and who knows what else. As a non-native, I've never been able to tell what the pros and cons of each system are.
I pretty much agree with Chris.
UT System: by far the biggie. Nine general academic institutions and 6 health science centers. Some of those health science centers are abolustely world class, e.g. UT Southwestern, M.D. Anderson. UT Austin is obviously the Big Dog of the system in terms of general academic. (But, it's the Big Dog of the State, not just a system). The UT System is very well run and offers a lot of services to its institutions, particularly those that are not UT Austin. It's looked at as a national leader, for instance on accountability...only the UC System is regarded as more important. Other Texas Institutions and Systems look at what UT is doing. Arlington, Dallas, San Antonio, and El Paso are emerging research institutions, and have benefited from greater attention and resources in recent years. The System is honestly trying to elevate them. The 4 small universities are Permian Basin, Tyler, Pan-American, and Brownsville.
A&M Sytem: College Station is the biggie, and the others are smaller teaching universities in rural or small communities, plus one health science center. No emerging research universities in the bunch. Also includes items like agriculture extension stations.
University of Houston System: this one is unique because it covers, and dominates, a large metropolitan area. UH is their biggie, but they get coverage by with Downtown, Clear Lake, one other I can't think of, and some centers. The president of the U of H is also the chancellor of the system. For a small system with no huge ambitions beyond teaching for the others in their system, this arrangement makes sense...saves money.
Texas Tech System: a small, limited, system. Consists of Tech, the Tech Health Science Center, and, recently added, Angelo State.
Texas State: as Chris mentioned, there is no "flagship" in this system. It is a weak system and offers fewer services to its institutions.
UNT System: a small, limited system. Consists of UNT and the UNT Health Science Center. Trying real hard to stay a system by adding a south Dallas univerity and other things. In my opinion, this is the least credible of any system in the state and should not exist...I believe many others would (and do) say the same. Denton, I believe, would be better off without it. I'm not going to say how, but I believe UNT Denton would thrive even more in a better system.
Politically, change is difficult. But, I don't think many people in power would say that we need 6 systems...it's completely ridiculous. Too much overhead and less efficiency. You can come up with any configuration you want, but I think we could eliminate and consolidate down to 4. UNT System shouldn't exist and the Texas State system could be folded into a couple of others...such as Lamar and Sam Houston to the UH System and the rest to some other system such as Tech or A&M.
-
The funny part in all this is that the organization actually responsible for certifying "research" universities weighed in on this a long time ago.
Go here for the lookup graduate schools/endowment funds/government use:
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp
Texas has 3 Research Intensive "Flagship" (R/VH) Universities: Texas - Austin, TAMU & Rice, compared to California's 11; and 7 Research Universities: Baylor, TxTech, UH, UNT, UTA, UTD, UTEP compared with California's 2. The addition of 6 new state flagships (Baylor has to make its own decision) is merely drawing us up to where we should be vis-a-vis Cali. The only problem: Where's TxSt? Down one step with the SMUs and TCUs of the world.
Carnegie is a respected organization and its classification system has meaning. However, it isn't that meaningful in the context of what is being discussed. Take a look at Faulkner's talk again in my link above. That pretty much defines what Texas means in the current research university discussion. And, by that, we have 2 publics (Austin & A&M) and one private. Rice, of course, is fantastic, but doesn't operate on a big scale.
Texas State isn't even in these discussions. Baylor and TCU are not, either. Their research presences are very small. Good universities, all the same.
President's Resignation Will Be Expensive To The University
in UNT News
Posted
I'm not surprised to see that there is an expensive separation package. She had a contract, and the U wants to end it early...and, no doubt, Bataille has done nothing to violate any employment agreement. THIS is why President Batille is silent as to the reason of her resignation; it is part of the separation package. If she speaks-out it will violate the package and nullify her "go away" money. And, of course, she should take it and is entitled to it. No sane person would leave that, and it has nothing to do with her love and loyalty to UNT. BTW, I think the concern from the materials professor is extremely valid.