Go_UTA

Our volleyball schedule is out, and we are participating in the UNT Volleyball tournament in late August. Glad to see that. It's us, UNT, Jackson State, and Texas Tech. http://utamavs.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s...df/2008Schedule I like our schedule, and real glad UNT is part of it. We got all the local competition. Some good "names." Host 2 tournaments. A trip out west, which is a volleyball hotbed. I'll be interested in seeing yours, too. Volleyball is intensely interest to watch, IMO.

Okay, to give an idea, for UT Arlington in 2007: Total research expenditures $40 million Sponsored revenue $55 million Federal research expenditures $20 million All of this is available at my (our) fingertips, because the UT System measures and rapidly publishes this, and much more. Another campus of interest, UT San Antonio in 2007: Total research expenditures $32 million Sponsored revenue $73 million Federal research expenditures $22 million A lot of people weight Federal as pretty significant because 1) it's all competitive, and 2) it's capturing federal dollars for Texas.

Well, of course, I meant million, and I think that was obvious in the context of the sentence. But, if you didn't get that, I meant million. The figures I gave were research expenditures. I have not gathered the sponsored revenue figures, but, usually, it is higher than research expenditures. $24 million in sponsored projects sounds reasonable and in the ball park for UNT. Sponsored revenue is a more comprehensive measure of an institution's success in gathering external funding to support research, public service, training, and other activities. If we are comparing sponsored research, we'd have to scale-up all the numbers I have presented previously for UT Arlington, Austin, and A&M. The relative relationships would be about the same, however. Both research expenditures and sponsored revenue are important metrics. A third one that is looked at heavily is federal research funding.

I believe the sky is the limit for UNT. I really do. I also believe in being ambitious and aiming high, very high, in fact. So, I'm not discouraging you in the slightest. At the same time, however, I think one must be realistic and at least aware of other realities, but those realities shouldn't hinder you. However, be aware that A&M and Austin each do about $500 million a year in research; UNT is doing about $14. Those schools have mega-mega endowments, and yours and mine would be just rounding errors in theirs. In many ways, Austin and A&M alumni run this state, and will be the first to be protected in any downturn. Also, remember that Austin and A&M are not standing still, but aggressively moving forward in their own right. Nobody will every "catch up" to these institutions...but you don't have to in order to be great. I repeat, I think UNT has an awesome future and is of critical importance to the state, and none of this discussion should be interpreted as meaning otherwise.

Just a note. No one in Texas will ever rival or surpass UT Austin or A&M...in or out of their respective systems. Just the way it is. But, fortunately, none of us have to in order to be excellent and prominent. We can make our own ways. UC Santa Cruz or UC Riverside will never rival in scope, much less surpass, UC Los Angeles or UC Berkeley. So what? They are both freakin' outstanding, as is every institution in the UC System. On another note, Texas does have too many systems. (UT, A&M, Texas State, UH, TT, and UNT.) Also, there are the odd situations of having 4 or so stand alones. I don't know what or when something will happen, but clearly there needs to be some rationalization. What we have is crazy and wasteful.

True. That is why UNT is one of 7 classified as "emerging research institution." You are not just another state university. There are several groupings below, and only one above. (And, you could have stopped reading this thread on p. 2 or 3 if it bothers you.)

I'm not so sure Hurley was the devil, even if he had a hand in the mistake in south Dallas. Interesting comment about Bataille's background to form a research university. I don't think her background is necessarily a handicapp if she understands academia, which she does. However, I was surprised at the background of the provost, given Bataille's background. I mean, the provost is very qualified, but she has the same kind of language-type background as Bataille. They come from the same cut of cloth, which is not technical. I would have thought that ONE OF THEM should be from the hard sciences or engineering, which is not the case.

Checkfacts has educated himself on the state of education, particularly in Texas. Sure, I think athletics if it can be done without gross spending deficits are well and good. They contribute to school spirit and notoriety, but Checkfacts is absolutely right as to what achieves real institutional stature: funded research, faculty productivity, endowed faculty positions, faculty publications, etc. He is also right that there are too many systems in Texas, (In fact, there are only 2 or 3 real systems), and that the creation of the tiny and unneeded Dallas campus is a terrible waste of resources. I further concur with his statements about the UT System. The UT System provides best-in-class accountability and holds its universities to high standards of performance and progress. It has excellent services for its campuses. I'll also throw-in that UC Davis is a GREAT university; all of the UC campuses are stellar which is why one of UT Arlington's aspirational peers is UC Santa Cruz. Texas has 2 tier I state universities; U of H can make a claim to being the next closest and should probably be brought forward. The Houston area needs one. Tech is trying, and may make it; however, they are handicapped by their utter isolation and lack of major airport access. After that, I believe that 4 UT System universities will do the job next in some order. I'm talking about Arlington, Dallas, El Paso, and San Antonio. Much of the building to become Tier I will have to be "do it yourself" by each campus. The state probably isn't going to suddenly start bestowing significant extra funding on a select few. That's why focus on the factors that Checkfacts mentions are of critical importance. Any aspirant that isn't focused on them will be left behind. I think UNT is focused on them now, but they have essentially squandered the 2000s. Pohl was a great guy, but he didn't know what he was doing. Last I heard, he is now running an aviation school in Arizona. Probably a great job, but that says something about suitability to run a major campus. Bataille is the real deal and trying to fix things. UNT's wide and deep doctoral offerings are definitely one of your strengths. UNT's weakness is its research, which is why you see your university suddenly "getting religion" and setting up research clusters. However, to a large degree, your academic strengths don't lend themselves to gathering funded research. Institutions with deep and wide engineering and science offerings have the leg up. UT Arlington has been mentioned a few times in this thread, and some of it is B.S. which I won't even bothering answering directly. However, let me highlight the key differentiator right now between UTA and UNT, and why UNT is at the bottom of the Emerging Research List, as CheckFacts has been saying: research. In the early 2000s UNT and UT Arlington were neck-in-neck in research. In fact, around 2000, UNT was slightly ahead by a few hundred thousand. Now, let me give you some firm figures. In 2004, UNT did $15.6 million, and UTA did $22.4 million. In 2007, UNT did $14 million, and UT Arlingon did $40 million. Do you see some trends here? Which university has been focused on building itself as a research institution? This, I believe, is what alarms your competent current adminstration. Believe me, f-ball and our recent basketball success, while helpful and fun, doesn't have squat to do with this. UT Arlington is FOCUSED in becoming a $100 million a year research institution. This is evidenced by breaking ground in 2008 on $143 million of engineering and science RESEARCH buildings with more directly in the pipeline for probably 2009. I hope you get your stadium and everything. That would be an image boost. I'm not taking anything away from that.

I expressed my opinion to you guys earlier that Bataille is the real deal. Everything she has done and is doing seems to bear that out, IMO. Talent like this at the presidential level commands a high salary in the market place. I'm not surprised, but I'm still amazed at what top administrators can make these days. We are bringing in a new provost from the U of Arkansas, and I did a double-take at what he is going to pull down. I think Bataille is worth every penny, as I think is she is the entire package, which is just what UNT deserves and needs. As a taxpayer and Texan, I want my universities to be doing the best they possibly can.

Great article. I would think you would have to be tickled pink (or green, in this case). You never know what you are going to get from an eastern newspaper or magazine. It all depends on the preconceived angle the writer wants and whether or not they have an axe to grind. Count your blessings. Awesome publicity.

I'll agree that your enrollment has grown larger than ours, but you are making a huge leap in trying to infer football as the cause or even a contributing cause. You can say that, but you have no evidence. And, there is simply a staggering amount of other factors that add-up to student population growth, e.g., demographic changes, transportation changes, desire to grow, popularity of degree offerings, good or bad leadership, recruitment efforts, etc. It is my belief that f-ball has had little effect on our enrollment one way or the other. Just to make some broad strokes: 1) enrollment continued to climb after f-ball was gone, 2) enrollment took a dip in the 1990s that was concurrent with a disastrous presidential administration (moral plunged, faculty was in revolt, many bad headlines and articles...was finally forced out in disgrace...this was a period when all institutional momentum fell backward), 3) with new and competent leadership, in the early 2000s we were again the fastest growing university in the state, 4) enrollment growth slowed in the middle of this decade, but it was planned as a step to increase the quality of the student body (by increasing both freshman entrance requirements and transfer student requirements).

The truly profitable athletic departments are few in number, and occupy rarified air that the great majority don't and never will. We are talking about the UT Austins of the world. Yeah, those departments seem more like semi-pro outfits.

Good one! Yeah, but, still, you know that I'm right! But, to answer your good natured tease, let me just say that I would personally support whatever my university decided to put on the court or field. But, I would strongly prefer that it be done right without sucking millions and millions every year from what we already have. (And, remember, we are now blocks from 2 professional sports franchises...don't think that doesn't make a difference.) As an aside, as much as I enjoy athletics, I am most proud of the growth of the university as a research institution, and I don't want anything to side-track that momentum. In round numbers, in 2001 or so we were doing about $16 million a year in research, and in 2007 we did $40 million or so. It has been a straight trend up almost every year. I expect these numbers to keep moving upward toward $100 million a year within a reasonable time frame. This is and will make the reputation of the university. And, this is where our natural strength is. All this said, I am looking forward to a new facility for b-ball (please, someday!) and more success on the court! And, Babyarm, I'm not trying to tick you off, and admire your devotion to UNT...and your enjoyment of athletics! It is a lot of fun.

Baby Arm, you are indeed waxing in nostalgia and idealism. Hey, I believe in idealism, too, but you have to be a realist, too. The kinds of learning experiences you are writing about for the athletes themselves "in the huddle," so to speak, can be accomplished without multi-million dollar spending deficits and insane facilities arms races. To suggest the two must go together isn't true at all. And, of course, athletic departments must be held to a different standard than the chemistry department. It's not an academic department. A successful athletic department is all well, good, and helpful, and some level of deficit spending is usually tolerated. But, to suggest the athletic department is part of the core mission of the university just isn't true.

The difference is that athletics isn't the mission of the university. I know, it takes on that importance is some people's eyes, but, fact is, we have our universities to educate and create knowledge. I concede that athletics, done right, is a great thing. It brings notoriety and increases spirit. But, it isn't the mission of the university. Using the examples given, the chemistry and history department are the missions of the universities. So, a comparison of athletics to those or other academic departments isn't valid. Almost all athletic departments lose money. Some more than others. It is up to each institution to decide what is tolerable. However, each institution (administration) should be aware of the true costs and trade-offs, even if they don't publish them. They need to know this in order to evaluate the programs and trade-offs, because large deficits do drain resources from the teaching or research efforts, or both. SMU's deficit sounds like a hell of a lot to me. For whatever success they enjoy in athletics, they pay a dear price for it. I have a feeling the release of these numbers is going to create a lot of internal criticism and moral problems for them.

Getting LEED certification for buildings and "sustainability," in general, is spreading like wild fire. It's the big deal now. SMU has the first LEED certified building among the DFW universities. UT Arlington's engineering research building, which will break ground this summer, will be LEED certified. (I don't know at what level.) Also the campus just installed the metroplex's first "green roof" a few weeks ago on the existing Life Science Building. I'm talking about soil and plants. It will be the first of many, and is sort of an experiment to see what soils and plants work best for other projects. The new engineering research building will have a green roof, too. In a few years, it will be so routine to have LEED certified buildings that I'm not sure if the rating will have a lot of meaning. It will be so standard. Your new business building will almost certainly be LEED certified, and may even go after the green roof idea.

Exactly. One of the best posts I have ever seen on the subject.

Spoken like a Denton reporter.

I don't think the salary requirements of Capps and Stephens were at all different. Do you think Capps was making a fortunate at UT Arlington? No. Nice salary, yes, but I can guarantee she wasn't demanding anything that you won't already be paying to Stephens. This choice may be a lot of things, but it wasn't made as a business decision. I find it very hard to disagree with anything Rick and Emmitt have said on this.

The article is kind in refering to them as a doctoral research institution. In a technical sense, one could call them that, as they do have a handful of doctoral programs and do do some research. However, that doesn't characterize them. Their programs are few, and their research budget is small. They would like to join the state's "emerging research" universities (like UNT and UT Arlington), but they are not there. They are really a masters institution. (Not a thing wrong with that.) Besides that, they can thank UT San Antonio's f-ball movement for jump starting them into action. UTSA is beating them out as a research institution, and they don't want to get left behind in f-ball. Good luck to them.

I am very proud of Scott Cross and the Mavericks. They did a hell of a job. As a DMN columnist wrote, the score wasn't indicative of the attack and never-give-up Mavs. They played hard, with heart, the whole way, which made the game entertaining. The Memphis fans said on their board after the game, the Mavs didn't lay down like some other 16 seeds did. Yeah, Memphis was a hell of a squad...a bunch of future draft picks. They nearly won the whole thing, except for choking at the line in the final minutes of the championship game...but that's the game. Side note for those who are still old fashioned and believe college sports should resemble the educational institutions they represent: number of players Calapari has graduated: zero. I believe UNT and UTA are in the 30-40% range for graduation rates in their men's programs. I think those are respectable figures, considering transfers and what-not. Hope we play you guys again this upcoming season, which would be in the Super Pit.

I'm going with Memphis. I picked them to win it all in my pick 'em bracket, and I'll stick with them. 1) I had a hunch about Memphis doing very, very well. 2) I'd like the team that beat us to go as far as possible. Never mind that Calapari has never graduated anybody.

But, hey you gotta admit the people putting together that ad know how to pick out a model. The horny guys just glancing at the "UNT" on her chest will get a good impression. I saw that ad in Houston last week at the Galleria Barnes & Noble. It was in a magazine featuring all Texas colleges and universities.

That's mighty enlightened of you guys voicing your okay with the women coaches likin' the girls. Very "today." How would you feel about your male coaches likin' the boys? Not that there is anything wrong with that.

The facility is what it is, which we all know is a recruiting and scheduling hinderance. That's a big thing, and I'm not trying to gloss over it. Besides that, I believe she was well supported...full array of NCAA allowable scholarships, full set of assistants, travel across the country for big games and tournaments. Those were visible things which suggest she was nicely, if not lavishly, funded. In fact, I think she would have had to have been to have the success she did. The issue was more along the lines of the former reason stated above. She had some personal loyalties that she didn't feel she could break, apparently. But, yes, no official reason was given. All public statements by the University and Donna were cordial, as well they should have been. She could start fresh at UNT, and, if I were to venture a guess, coaching looks a lot more attractive after being administration for a while. Go get Donna, and let's start playing wb-ball every year. Donna won't be intimidated to schedule us, and it would add attention and interest to the games.