PUF should be a breathing thing adept to change. It's insane for Tea Sips & Aggies alike to suggest the funds should always and only be for them. You have pro UT-Houston people saying in one side of their mouth that UT-Houston is merely a reflection of keeping up with growth in the state of Texas, and then in the other side of their mouth say that the PUF should only be proportioned to UT and A&M now and until the end of time. PUF is a state-owned investment fund created to fund and promote higher education in Texas. Just because UT was gifted stewardship during Horse & Buggy Times doesn't mean the PUF and AUF is now somehow there's only. It was created from state grazing leases and tycoon money. It doesn't make someone's great great great grandaddy any more special just because he was given a pile of gold and bonds to throw in a bank and monitor. The original intention was to fund state colleges. That is why it was amended in the mid 20th century to include A&M. If you look at the average number of state-funded flagship colleges per state, per population size, you will see how ridiculous it is that Texas as one of the largest populations has only had 2 state universities hoarding all the cash for generations upon generations regardless how the state has grown. In the same way that the Dept. of Justice breaks up monopolies because of their anti-competitive and socialistic characteristics, the state should continue to amend the PUF/AUF much like they did for A&M as more state universities grow & meet criteria. Most states do this, Texas has not. UH was brought online as an official state university in the 60s. Since then it has organically grown and competed independently against the 2 state-funded hungry hippos. UH is now the 3rd largest university in the state of Texas and is now recognized as a Tier 1 institution. Currently UT gets 2/3rds the pot of cash to A&M's 1/3rd. Lawmakers are putting forth measures to cut UT's portion in half and allocate that to UH. 1/3rd for each: UT, A&M, and UH. It is the opinion of many, educators and lawmakers alike, that this is woefully overdue. UT grabbing land in the middle of the night using PUF funds without state approval is fraudulent, highly predatory, illegal and hostile. It's a thin facade of choice, but the real essence of the move is to eradicate choice and competition.
How on earth does that make sense, given that the UT and A&M systems have many more campuses and support many more students than UH? What educators think that it's logical to evenly distribute the money to a university a fraction of the size of the other two?
I agree that particular approach is misguided. The whole beef everyone has with higher education policy in Texas is the wildly disproportional way in which it is funded. No reason the solution should create the inverse of the same problem. Of course everyone should stop for a minute and realize that the whole reason UT and TAMU are the behemoths they are, which now require a lion's share of funding, is because they have been fed beyond a lion's share for a century or so. I thought John Whitmire's (D-Houston) quote on the matter was pretty much spot on “If you’ve got that kind of money to speculate in real estate, then maybe you’ve got too much money."
You guys are only proving how the generations of disproportionate favoring has allowed the UT product (and A&M product) to spread like giant salvinia. That's what the funds are sustaining, conquest and state domination. If the conversation can just be had and the laws finally amended that UH (and potentially additional public states colleges) should have a portion of the PUF/AUF, then Texas's higher education will stop looking like a Pepsi-Coke challenge. It's good for Texas and good for Texas higher education. Wherever you slice the cake, I agree it should be done with sharp cutlery and not blunt karate chops. Back to the main point, no way now how UH will make concessions about the UT-Houston expansion in back channels as a way to get into the Big 12. Two separate things, and it would be disastrous for UH to be that shortsighted.
Right, and I agree with all of this. Unless you have a time machine (I know UH has a great physics program so...) this kind of a moot point.
I've heard one of the reasons why the purchase was made before notifying the state was so that the prices on the land weren't driven up. The land can always be re-sold.
So? That doesn't make it appropriate or right. Further there have also been some that claim they over paid for the land. Whether the land can or cannot be resold is irrelevant.
I would think that buying the land and then awaiting the state's decision and then being able to re-sell it is much more cost efficient than allowing the land of the price to be jacked up. They haven't built anything on it so what is up with the outrage lol. Let's just await the state's decision. Hoping another university opens up in Houston.
I don't have any outrage over it, I am not a UH graduate. The point is that they unilaterally purchased (for $450,000,000) of land in the medical center without approval or any notice, and during a time when the legislature wasn't in session. The valuation of the land was in the $35,000,000 to $65,000,000 range; good luck selling the land back without a loss. There is a reason that the legislature created the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. It will probably all get worked out, but UH has a legitimate claim to be upset.
My outrage is a state institution deciding to make large purchases with state funds without state approval. UT wanting to get a better deal doesn't trump state protocol.
Wait, what am I reading here. The land was valued at $35-65 million, but they paid $450 million? Can someone explain to me why they paid so much?
Sounds like they need an investigation into who profited off of that deal. I've heard of a lot of "good ole boy" deals before, but that's kind of ridiculous.
