The battle over UT
I wrote the cover story in the current issue of TEXAS MONTHLY. The subject is the future of higher education generally and the threats to the academic reputation of UT-Austin in particular. In the story I deal with Governor Perry’s attempt, starting in 2008, to control higher ed by seeking to impose “breakthrough solutions” that would radically alter the way higher education is governed, in ways that are at times inconsistent with the mission of a Tier 1 university. Some of the reforms proposed were intriguing, but none are in general use.
The latest concern is that recent appointees to the Board of Regents, several of them connected to the influential Texas Public Policy Foundation, have an ideological agenda concerning the governance of UT-Austin–expanding enrollment and reducing funding–that may jeopardize the academic stature of the university. UT is not the only campus in the state to face this threat; at one point, Texas A&M was in danger of losing its membership in the Association of American Universities, the “club” of the nation’s leading research universities. The objective of my story is to relate how this state of affairs came to exist and how it might impact the state’s leading universities.
Tagged: higher education
Just Another Joe says:
Yawn. No attention span over here for you patting yourself on the back over an article covering a topic that probably wouldn’t even register as one of the top three policy issues on voters’ minds.
But good work, though, Paul. At least I imagine so. Don’t expect me to be buying this issue.
Reply »
Ben Quick Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Hate to be negative, but you are an idiot – our problem today is everything seems to revolve around what is “top on voters minds” – boters should be more concerned with what is good for Texas (the State)
Reply »
Just Another Joe Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
I’ts ok, Ben. No hard feelings. I think you are an idiot, too.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
“I think “boters” need to be more concerned about the safe navigation of the waterways than what is good for Texas.” – Capt Queeg
Reply »
Marcy Reply:
October 17th, 2012 at 9:29 am
Dear Ben Quick:
Really? Did you know that only 1/3 of Texans even bother to “bote”? If closer to 100% of Texans would bother to “bote” we would get rid of Good Hair.
M
Reply »
Beerman Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
I am looking forward to the article.
Reply »
Marcy Reply:
October 17th, 2012 at 9:28 am
Dear Just Another Joe,
Just because YOU have a short attention span doesn’t mean WE have to hear about it. I’m surprised you have enough of an attention span to write a comment at all. This was a very thoroughly researched and well written article that should concern people in Texas with healthy attention spans.
M
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Hey Perry…….DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS!!!!
Reply »
GOP Realist says:
If Rick Perry forces Powers out (and by doing so discourages other prestigious academics from considering Texas as a destination) and implements changes that decrease my beloved alma mater’s academic standing and the value of my diplomas, there will be hell to pay. Perhaps he watched the fiacos at Virginia and learned something.
Turn other schools without as much to lose into the $10,000 degree mills and testing grounds for radical new ideas. UT is special. I’m worried Perry thinks that is a bad thing. But he is an Aggie.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 10:21 am
He’s also the ONLY Aggie to occupy the Governor’s Mansion in state history.
Reply »
Marcy Reply:
October 17th, 2012 at 9:32 am
Dear Realist:
That explains it. Rick Perry is an Aggie joke.
M
Reply »
Justin says:
My biggest problem with these large scale universities is how little value they place on military service. A few years ago I went to the A&M campus to discuss enrollment and had my documents tossed back at me because I was a B+ student in high school. I was told “we don’t care what you’ve done since high school, we only care about what your grades were in high school.” Mind you, this was after 2 deployments and 6 years in the Army. I had worked my way through the ranks to become a noncommissioned officer and here I had some pinhead telling me he didn’t care about what I’d done to keep his sorry @$$ safe. I just wish they would look at something other than what I did when I was 17.
Reply »
texun Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
I hope that your wrote to the President of A & M to protest the mindless treatment you received. Curiously, the Ivies would consider your 6 years in the Army positively because the enhanced maturity makes it more likely that you will complete a degree successfully.
You have a very legitimate gripe here! Pursue it.
Reply »
Justin Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
I did. I got no response.
Reply »
Pat Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Really? Just…really? Thats outrageous. Graduate schools place a very high premium on military service. Write your state senator and state representative!
Reply »
Justin Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
I have no desire to ever attend that school. If I never see College Station again, it will be too soon. No maroon is allowed in my house. I have nothing good to say about that institution.
Reply »
Anon Reply:
September 28th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
I seriously doubt anyone at A&M told you that they didn’t care about your military service. More likely they said that it didn’t nullify your average grades in high school. I love these posters who would accept this response from UT saying that it is “elite” and you have to have good grades through high school, but dumping on A&M for expecting the same thing.
Someone’s bitter.
Reply »
karl hattensr Reply:
September 30th, 2012 at 11:37 pm
Best students I ever saw were the vets from WW II . Look at the results. The greatest generation !
Reply »
Marcy Reply:
October 17th, 2012 at 9:33 am
Dear Justin:
I agree with you. That is just wrong!
M
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Alex Cranberg is a Colorado resident but serves on the BOR
Reply »
truth squad Reply:
September 24th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Please furnish evidence of his Colo residency. Presumably he registered to vote in Texas and got a driver’s license and rented an Austin apartment.
Reply »
Robert says:
“The latest concern is that recent appointees to the Board of Regents, several of them connected to the influential Texas Public Policy Foundation,..”
But you’d have little concern if they were affiliated with the CPPP or other lefty group, would you?
Reply »
Kathryn Snyder says:
I do believe that professors need to be held to teaching standards after tenure, but I also think that the ‘problem’ of the tenured professor is exaggerated. They are depicted as bloated leeches living off glorified state and federally-funded welfare programs. Let’s talk about the politicians doing the same thing or college football coaches, for that matter. Yes, most articles professors publish won’t be read by the general population, but should we make that the basis of attacking the production of knowledge? If we quit funding higher education, then it will eventually result in an intellectually-impoverished society where people are denied the chance to have original thought. One of the primary duties (as I see it) of college professors is to raise awareness of social issues that have plagued and continue to plague society. Sometimes that is not appreciated by society’s leaders, nor is it seen as useful. They want mindless wage slaves from trade school powering the engine of American capitalism. We need plumbers, construction workers, and accountants–but to be a great nation with an informed citizenry, we also need to patronize higher education. All great societies have that in common.
Reply »
leon on the leon Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Spot on Kathryn.
Reply »
Marcy Reply:
October 17th, 2012 at 9:43 am
I agree Kathryn. There are plenty of overpaid politicians, athletes, & entertainers. Congress gets a lifetime salary & health care, and their salary is bloated. And how effective and efficient are they? There are some reforms needed, but reforms take time, and you have to have a good amount of “buy in” from all parties, which takes collaboration, and you have to have a plan for “change management”. These people tried to push them through with no buy in from anyone, so of course, they were opposed.
Reply »
The Ghost of Sam Houston says:
The aggressive ignorance and proud backwardness expressed by some of the commenters in this thread is evidence of the ossified thinking that will lead to the world leaving Texas in its tracks if we don’t have a course correction in our state leadership. The global marketplace is rapidly changing. Top academic institutions that are broadly available to the best and brightest are critical to ensuring we have a vibrant economy in an advanced, civilized society. Thank you for focusing on this important issue, Mr. Burka.
Reply »
City Slicker Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Amen! They wear ignorance as a badge of honor or as if it were something to be proud of.
Reply »
Tom Barry says:
Read Ken Herman’s column this morning to understand all you need to know about Perry and the concept that knowledge is unimportant.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Perry thinks TAMU and Hillsdale are the states flagship U’s
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
The battle is really over what is the TRUE PURPOSE of a university. There are those of us who still believe a university’s purpose is to expand knowledge and teach us how to think and analyze. There are also those—such as our Beloved Governor, Gov. Oops–who just want universities to churn out little technicians (accountants, lawyers, engineers, clerks, etc.) for the use of business and industry. Universities can and should help provide the skills for future employment but, if that becomes their primary purpose, we will find the world of tomorrow much less interesting
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
Not to change the subject, but did you see that Gov. Pawlently has quit the Romney campaign. He says he is taking a business lobbying job and had to be non-partisan. That is a perfectly good reason…but does anyone hear the “squeak, squeak” little furry animals make when they go over the rail?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Thankfully the pay at UT is going up:
“Records obtained by the American-Statesman under the Texas Public Information Act show the largest raise for the 2013 budget year, which began Sept. 1, went to Francie Frederick, general counsel to the Board of Regents. Her annual pay jumped by $60,000 to $420,000, a 16.7 percent increase from the 2012 budget year.
Other system executives have seen their pay soar in recent years, the records show. Amy Shaw Thomas, vice chancellor for health affairs, is drawing $343,000, 52.4 percent more than she made when she was promoted to the position in 2009. Randa Safady, vice chancellor for external relations, is getting $455,746, a 32.1 percent jump from five years ago.”
WoW! MoM! WoW! MoM! WoW!
Reply »
Mobert Rorrow Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
I think it is important to distinguished between UT Austin (a campus, with classrooms and students) and UT System (a bureaucracy without students or a campus).
If the objective is to focus resources on teaching and the classroom, UT Austin gets an “A” and UT System gets the bad antenna award for being so disconnected from reality.
Reply »
anon Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Of course, the very well compensated Mrs. Thomas is the wife of the Republican nominee for the Texas House taking on Rep. Donna Howard.
Reply »
Whoa, Nellie! Reply:
September 23rd, 2012 at 12:03 am
Meanwhile, regular staff go begging. A 2% raise is considered a good deal. And only the well-heeled depts. can even offer that each year. There hasn’t been a cost-of-living raise across the board for low and mid-level university employees since I can’t remember. They have been routinely exempted the last times other state workers received raises. It’s obscene that UT’s “Orange Santa” charity program, designed to be supported by UT workers, instead actually serves a number of UT workers. Texas university’s need to pay a living wage to those who usually do all the work and quit rewarding the overpaid administrators, coaches, prima donna faculty, etc., who suck up all the payroll funds and do very little except act important.
I mean, I know of tenured professors who have their assistants open and read and respond to their email because they just CAN’T BE BOTHERED to learn basic computer skills.
And don’t get me started on the amount of money that is wasted throwing lavish conferences, symposiums, and other glad-handing social events pretending to be related to academics.
Reply »
Marcy Reply:
October 17th, 2012 at 9:50 am
Whoa Nelly:
Are you sure of your facts? You’re making some pretty broad criticisms here.
M
Reply »
Marcy Reply:
October 17th, 2012 at 9:46 am
Dear Whoa Nelly:
Wow is right. Are you sure of this? Did their responsibilities also increase?
Reply »
Dave says:
I blame Satan.
Reply »
FLPD says:
Excellent article, Mr. Burka. I got my TM yesterday. Alex Cranberg warrants his own in-depth investigative piece. Forbes said last week that Cranberg’s new oil gusher in Iraq (yes, Iraq) could make him a billionaire. Now, there’s some foreign oil that’s good for at least somebody in the U.S.
Reply »
i'm special says:
UT special? Look at the ratings. How many public institutions (in CA alone) are ranked ahead of UT?
UT (and TX Monthly) should be parroting Pogo: We have seen the enemy and it is us.
Forget Perry, UT. You’re not special; far from it. You’re a second-class institution as far as the rest of the country is concerned. There are 10 CA public schools better than you. Rice is the only nationally-respected elite (undergrad) institution in Tx.
Get over yourself, UT. Try competing in the real world instead of paying for trite slogans about “changing the world.”
Try for the next rung on your ladder, which is aspiring to be Wisconsin or Iowa. You have money and talent. But you are not elite. Why is that?
Your battle isn’t with Perry; it’s with your sub-standard self.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
I see the aggy trolls are out.
Reply »
panchovilla Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 9:52 am
Very true. And Texas has been ranked behind most UC schools, as well as Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, etc, well before Perry embarked on his reforms. UT is a good school with some impressive graduate programs. But it will never be in the same league as the Berkeleys of the world as long as its studen population hovers around 50,000.
Reply »
SoCal AUS Reply:
September 26th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
The ignorance of some posters on here is unbelievable. USN rankings take into account factors that for the most part are worthless in determining the “prestige” factor of a university. Selectivity in USN rankings hurts UT due to the 10%, now 8% legislative requirement. Other rankings, those from around the world, focus on research aspects of a university as opposed to basic admission factors. This is coming from someone that graduated from one of the UC schools, UCLA specifically.
Reply »
Marcy Reply:
October 17th, 2012 at 9:53 am
Dear “i’m special”
Interesting that you call yourself “i’m special”, but obviously you think no one else is. Hmmm.
M
Reply »
Paul Stekler says:
Well, UT’s film program is generally acknowledged to be in the top six or seven in the country. And that’s with an operating budget well below the other top ranked schools, like USC and NYU. And with a student majors that are about 25% Hispanic, much higher than any other fiolm program in the country (if a state institution reflecting its actual population is at all important to someone). Is that special?
Reply »
Wrong. says:
Wow. Not only factually inaccurate, but really, really bitter.
Not sure how math works in your world, but the new US News rankings show the following public California schools ranked ahead of UT Austin:
#21 Cal Berkeley
#24 UCLA
#38 (tie) Cal Davis; Cal San Diego
#41 Cal Santa Barbara
#44 Cal Irvine
#46 UT Austin
So that is six. If you don’t like UT, fine. But you do your argument a disservice by exaggerating and sounding so angry.
You are right about one thing. Rice is a very good school (#17). US News skews toward private universities, by the way. Cal Berkeley is the #1 public university, but 21st overall.
UT is ranked #13 of all public universities in the country.
Want to know what those public schools ahead of UT have in common (UVA, UNC, Georgia Tech)? Their states invest in higher education and don’t starve their flagships. California leads the nation because they made a commitment to it. Frankly, California probably OVER committed, but that’s the reason.
Reply »
panchovilla Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 9:58 am
Now who’s the one being factually inaccurate? It is well known that in recent years California has been starving its public universities as well. Berkeley receives, if not the majority, a significant share of its funding from private sources. And really, you don’t find it troubling that Texas’s flagship university is not on par with UC Irvine and Santa Barbara? Santa Barbara is considered an academnically soft party school in CA. And considering UT’s endowment, which dwarfs that of the other schools you reference, are you really justified in complaining about being “starved” by the legislature?
Reply »
Confused Reply:
September 23rd, 2012 at 11:02 am
Dont confuse UT System endowment with UT Austin. Common mistake, but inaccurate.
I think the author was recognizing that california was spread thin now and vee committed.
Reply »
GOP Realist says:
Dear “i’m special”,
UT is the best University in the State of Texas, and the 19th ranked State University in the Country.
Many academics rank it higher, as it is held back in many national rankings by its class sizes and requirement it take a certain % of in state students.
If UT could turn away more students and remove the requirement to show preference to in-state students, it would be a top 10 state university and top 20 national university.
But I rather like those restrictions.
so, yeah, “i’m special”, the University of Texas at Austin is recognized nationwide as being pretty special.
And you don’t know what you are talking about. I hope I educated you a little.
HOOK’EM!!
Reply »
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
“UT is the best University in the State of Texas”
Only if you don’t include Rice in that list. Which most people who know about great universities do. But I’d agree with those who say that Texas starves its state universities, including its flagships. And Texas has two of them, and I hate to tell most UT grads, once you get out of Texas, UT and A&M are fungible.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Ha. There is only one flagship university.
Reply »
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
Strictly speaking, yes, in any state there is only one flagship. But in states with more than one top state university, the term is isn’t very useful. For example, would you say that Berkeley is the only flagship university in California with UCLA being an afterthought? And my point about the national fungibility of UT and A&M still stands. Both are great schools, but Longhorns who refuse to admit that about A&M show how provincial they are. In fact, I think Texas Monthly did a cover story about a decade ago calling A&M Texas’s other flagship university.
NYC Longhorn Reply:
September 26th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
This statement is completely inaccurate. Large investment banks, consulting firms, etc. flock to UT because of their b school. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. I travel constantly for my job and UT’s b school is highly regarded wherever I go. Not to mention the other top ranked undergrad programs (communications, premed, various sciences, etc.) Do you travel?
Reply »
Paul Stekler says:
Maybe Mr. Wrong went to a school where they don’t teach reading. I said the UT “film” program, the RTF Department. Universities are made up of many departments, colleges and programs, and they vary in national rankings. The UT “film” program, which has almost 1000 undergraduate majors and about 200 graduate students, ranks solidly in the top ten overall, in the top six or seven in film production. Got it?
Reply »
hooah! says:
Enough about UT and its rankings. We’re talking about the possible triumph of the ignorant and stupid over those who are thoughtful and educated.
We destroyed our schools in the 60s and 70s, and this has began a class of voters who are willing to regularly return jackasses into office.
Time to leave. Bye.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
The University of Texas has many external factors working against, mainly a legislature and a Governor who don’t see the value in investing in higher education. They are joined by a cabal of Aggies and out of staters (mostly from Hillsdale College) who don’t like UT because professors there don’t teach that Jesus rode a dinosaur.
Despite all this, UT remains a university of the first class and the state’s lone flagship university.
Reply »
ghostofann says:
What Kathryn said.
Reply »
No Le Hace says:
A real danger is the Gov calls in his Regent appointees to tell them what to support….tells them to tell their Presidents and Chancellors not to testify negatively about Budget cuts. Tells the Coor Board what schools to favor, what programs should move forward.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
No Le Hace, Regents have to run all their decisions through Jeff Sandefer.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 10:23 am
Don’t forget that some of the Texas Tech Board of Regents were forced to step down after they supported KBH for governor in 2010 and Perry went balistic.
Reply »
No Le Hace says:
That’s a scary thought and unfortunately true
Reply »
No Le Hace says:
As I watch the Texas Chamber bemoan our public education failures, I am reminded that Rs have chaired the Education Committee, the Finance and Appropriations committee, Speaker, Lt. Gov, and the State Board of Education Commissioner appointed by the Gov for over ten years…..Same folks want to change higher Ed.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Great piece, Paul. I found your interview with Sandefer to be especially interesting. The
“Academically Adrift” report which states that 45% of students “did not demonstrate any improvement in learning the first two years in college, and 36% did not demonstrate any improvement over four years” sums it up pretty well, I thought. I took this to be a study based on large number of universities, but I would expect UT to be no different.
Boring, overpaid professors, teaching the basics out of the book in a monotone, having never earned a penny in the real world environment results in these sort of figures. I believe them. How much better would it be… how much more interesting… if more people like you taught introductory courses to undergrads? People with real world experiences? How much more usable knowledge would they retain? How much less expensive would these part-timers be? This was Mr. Sandefer’s argument, was it not?
UT undergraduate studies are no different than UTA’s as far as I’m concerned. Give graduates an exit exam and I’m not so sure that the 2nd tier universities wouldn’t score just as well. At UT, you pay for the name on the diploma. With many undergrad degrees (BA’s especially)the UT diploma might get you hired first, but it is the person with commonsense and personality that usually moves up the ladder first. This person isn’t always the Longhorn.
One other thing…A recent tv program described how a major Wall Street investment company, that hired high ranking graduates from high ranking universities, was having to send them to classes to learn to cope with the real business world environment. It seems that they found that these elite students who had been coddled and told they were all wonderful, all winners, and all worthy of receiving trophies for coming in 20th in a 20 person race, became extremely distraught when told they did something wrong, or were passed over for promotion, or criticized in any manner.
This “babying” throughout our educational system has got to stop. IMHO.
Reply »
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
One good thing has to be said about Sandefur. If you read his / TPPF’s report on higher education, they point out that the big research university model isn’t the only model (it was imported from Germany in the early 20th century) and for much of the history of the US, the New England liberal arts college was the model of higher education. You can still find it in Texas at places like Austin College or Southwestern. That may not be the model for all, but it has advantages over lecture halls with hundreds of students being taught (and I use that term loosely) by grad students and is the model that programs like Plan II at UT use. Maybe there’s more to college than expensive labs that few students use and football stadiums.
Reply »
Bodhisattva Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 7:38 am
John Johnson, is there any limit to your animus towards academics who “hav[e] never earned a penny in the real world environment?” I understand, and agree, that there are certainly disciplines — marketing comes to mind — where ‘real world’ experience must be helpful. But what’s the ‘real world’ experience that one should have before teaching world history, or 18th century literature, or organic chemistry? Is a Nobel Prize-winning theoretical astrophysicist incompetent to teach because he or she has never, in the vernacular of these slurs, “met a payroll?”
I am serious about the question. You’re a thoughtful guy on most of your posts. But, on this at least, you seem to share the opinion that the only valid human activity is economic, and that unless I’ve participated in modern American consumerist mercantilism I have no valid experience to offer the world, and certainly not the world of academia.
I don’t get it. Do we need better teachers in our colleges and universities? Certainly. Do they all have to be realtors on the side?
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 8:48 am
I agree with you. 18th Century Lit., organic chemistry, and theoretical astrophysicist are probably not going to be taught by a prof with business world experience, and if they were they would not be gaining much.
My gripe is with BA degree programs, not so much those in science or engineering. How many BA’s are awarded at UT as opposed to BS degrees?
Reply »
ghostofann says:
The attitude displayed by John Johnson shows how little people like him (i.e., conservatives) understand the purpose of higher education, especially at R1 institutions like UT. The idea that “common sense” is better than “book larnin’” is their tired talking point. It’s the idea that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
Have you read the article? What do you do for a living?
Reply »
texun Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 2:58 am
“What do you do for a living?” Skip the ad hominum stuff, John. It makes you look bad.
Basic math and writing skills don’t really improve much during undergraduate years, primarily because most students don’t take more math unless those courses are required in their majors. As to writing, the entry-level exams test general skills whereas undergrads learn the modes that are appropriate to their fields, but that additional learning can’t be compared fairly to the general levels tested at entry. This is pretty old stuff, as an identified problem.
It is fair to argue that students should learn to communicate more effectively, but achieving this objective would require smaller classes, for the most part. The old writing-across-the-curriculum programs tried to address this situation, but cut-backs in budgets pretty much derailed them.
Undergrads at Rice, Trinity, Southwestern, and Austin College generally write a good bit more than non-Plan II students at UT Austin.
In the USN ratings, schools that have relatively narrow missions do much better than the mega-universities that have to cover the whole spectrum of studies. Thus, in California of all of the state schools, only Caltech makes the top rung regularly. USN is comparing apples and oranges, as usual.
Reply »
panchovilla Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 2:09 pm
um, Caltech is not a “state” school. Sort of like MIT. And Cal and UCLA regularly make the “top rung”.
ghostofann says:
I haven’t received it in the mail yet, John. But thanks for asking!
Reply »
texun Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 2:44 pm
panchovilla, You are right about the status of Caltech. Sorry about that!
If I define the “top rung” as the top 20, I’ll stand by my statement. In the USN ratings, Cal and UCLA don’t usually make it as undergraduate institutions. Should they? I think so, but the rating system favors schools like Caltech, Princeton, et al. State universities generally are under-rated, in my opinion.
Just a note about the significance of endowment funds: the general standard for measuring impact is endowment per student. Under that method, liberal arts colleges, such as Swarthmore, Williams, and Amherst look very strong.
The Permanent University Fund, mainly income from energy operations, is spread over all of the schools in the UT and TAMU system, so the amount per student is relatively low. Both universities have endowments apart from PUF, but when you divide the amounts by enrollment, they have been relatively small, compared to the endowments of the leading private schools and some other public universities.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Well, how goofy is that… using endowment as a form of measuring a unversity’s academic worth?
Does having a lot of money make Jerry Jones a good NFL football general manager? Donald Trump a genius political advisor?
It seems to me that having lots of endowment money should mean a decrease in tuition instead of an increase? Especailly in light of the fact that you say schools with large endowments even get a larger share of federal and private grant money.
Obviously, if how large an endowment you brag about increases your stature in the academic community, no one wants to cut off any of it. Correct? They don’t want to use it to lower tuition and fees, that want it to just sit there and keep growing larger and larger, so they can brag about having one of the largest in the country.
Seems a bit juvenile to me.
Reply »
No Le Hace Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Sorry John endowments are used as a measuring stick in higher education, always have been always will be. Endowments allow colleges and unversities to do the extra, to pay for recruitment of faculty, to help establish a medical school in Austin’s case and to offer some stability against unforeseen reductions or fluctuations.
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Also, big endowments are used to fund scholarships and grants. That’s why schools like Princeton and Rice, despite having high quoted tuition and fee rates, actually end up cheaper than many private colleges that lack such endowments. Most people don’t pay full price at such schools, even if they are affluent. There’s a lot more to the cost of college than the public sticker price and big endowments are used to lower tuition and fees in practice.
John Johnson says:
We’ve had this debate before, Texun. My question was not a slam on ghostofann. I simply asked because many intellectuals, like yourself, have never earned a living in any field of endeavor other than teaching, and I am suggesting that all your highfalutin’ degrees would not insure your success in the real world. I would also suggest that many professors add nothing to the process that could not be garnered from the text book. Sandefer wants to change this to insure that universities afford students more value for their dollars, and a deliver a better prepared candidate to the workforce.
You think everything is hunky dory and moving in the right direction at UT. I disagree. There’s no need for you to suggest I am being rude, or for ghostofann to suggest that my ignorance is not holding up against your intellect.
Reply »
texun Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Talk about reverse snobbery!
And, for your information, JJ, I have owned successful businesses and I have worked in the “real world.” I know you will be disappointed to learn that because it challenges your deeply held and unfounded prejudices.
You also carry out the classic distortion, misrepresenting my opinion. I never claimed that “everything is hunky dory and moving in the right direction at UT.” Try not to set up straw men.
Try throwing your objection to “highfalutin’ degrees” at Texas business associations and see how they respond from the “real world”.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Truly, sorry, Texun. I was under the impression from prior posts on threads months back that you were in academia. If you have owned a company and worked in the real world, we will just have to say that I see things differently than you do.
I know what Texas businessmen want. The “highfalutin’ degrees” I referred to are those held by professors that would do nothing for them in a real world entreprenural buiness. Get it?
I’m not going to change your mind; nor you, mine. I simply read Paul’s piece and responded to his thread.
Reply »
ghostofann says:
But again, John, you don’t seem to understand that the primary purpose of R1 universities like UT and A&M isn’t to teach undergrads. Your anti-intellectualism blinds you to the fact that at these universities, the primary purpose is to generate knowledge, not produce trained technicians. Some of that knowledge is esoteric, but much of it (especially in the hard sciences) yields “real world” results in the forms of patents, etc.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Ghostofann, I think you should go online and read Paul’s piece before you comment further. A great deal of the article addresses TAMU’s and UT’s emphasis on research and failure to prepare students for the real world.
Your stating that R1′s are charged with just the opposite would make it seem that we are on the same side of this debate somewhat.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Actually, do away with UT and A&M. Maybe leave the football teams, for old times’ sake.
There are way too many educated people already and it hurts our cause as Republicans. As Santorum said the other day, “We will never have the elite, smart people on our side …”
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/santorum-we-will-never-have-elite-sma
Reply »
LuzVilla'sGhost says:
The Thomas and Safady salaries are just two examples of why the current leadership at UT – both the system and the campus – has numbered days.
Mr. Powers should be working with University President headhunters to find himself a new gig. His staff has much to do with his demise. One of his government affairs assistant has yet to return a call to a legislative office. It’s become somewhat of a joke at the Capitol.
Reply »
No Le Hace Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Powers doesn’t control system salaries or the system GR folks.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
How does Texas benefit from UT or TAMU being in the Association of American Universities? It is a prestige thing, isn’t it? How does the average Texan benefit? How does Johnny Doe, a UT undergrad student, benefit?
Reply »
texun Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Fair questions. Membership in
AAU tends to make it easier for universities to secure research grants because those schools subscribe to fairly uniform academic standards regarding faculty and research. So, it’s more than prestige involved.
The average Texan benefits because the research funds generate overhead costs for UT-Austin and TAMU. The hefty “indirect costs” support facilities, including libraries and IT operations in addition to picking up part of the academic salaries. In the face of general state-level cut-backs in funding for state colleges and universities, those funds are needed to maintain standards and keep faculty. Competition is increasingly keen for available research funds, so membership in AAU can provide a boost in competition.
As to how the average UT undergraduate benefits: without the outside money, it would be difficult to retain faculty in such cutting-edge fields as nanosciences. The libraries and other academic support facilities and operations would be stunted. Course offerings, mainly at the graduate level would be more limited, making it more difficult to attract top students and to keep top faculty members.
Is the emphasis on research and research-based funding impacting undergraduate education negatively? Possibly. Studies of science programs suggest otherwise, though the best known scholars in those programs tend to teach graduate students more often than undergraduates. Doing so is probably the best application of their skills and talents, though not all scholars would agree. Recently, I read an article about Leon Cooper, a Nobel Laureate in Physics and a long-time professor at Brown University. Cooper opted to teach undergrads for at least half of his teaching load, attracting crowds in his highly demanding philosophy of science courses.
The appropriate role for research in universities is a serious question; I appreciate your raising it in such a thoughtful way.
Reply »
Texas Tornado Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Great comment. The UT College of Natural Sciences is trailblazing, again, with its Freshman Research Initiative. The research is clear on the benefits to undergraduates of being brought into the research realm and UT is striving to do it as quickly as possible. World class research and scholarship is accessible to UT undergrads as never before and this program is being copied widely, as was UT’s earlier groundbreaking UTEACH initiative, which channelled science majors into secondary education.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Does UT Austin offer a minor in nanosciences like UT Dallas does? Is UT Austin mirroring the undergrad nanoscience courses being taught undergrads at UT Arlington?
John Johnson Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 11:15 pm
Texun, what does this mean? “The average Texan benefits because the research funds generate overhead costs for UT-Austin and TAMU. The hefty “indirect costs” support facilities, including libraries and IT operations in addition to picking up part of the academic salaries.”
Reply »
texun Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 6:18 pm
If somebody writes a grant, a university receives a part of it to offset “indirect costs,” those that are not incurred directly by the specific project. The assumption is that it costs a school something to host a project, fair enough. Somebody pays to keep the lights on, to maintain common facilities, and the like. Those costs can be pretty hefty, often starting at 25% of gross. Funding offices can negotiate the specific cut. Hope this helps.
John Johnson Reply:
September 22nd, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Yes. Thanks.
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 8:57 pm
AAU membership draws talented faculty and students (there are students and families who pay attention to stuff like this), which creates a more challenging and stimulating environment. And that cycle feeds on itself. This has real benefits for students, in terms of the environment they are exposed to and immersed in.
Reply »
texun Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Thanks. An important point.
Reply »
ghostofann says:
It benefits Johnny Doe, UT undergrad student, because it possibly adds marginal value to his degree, compared to that of Jane Doe, SFASU undergrad student. See?
Reply »
ghostofann Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 5:03 pm
By “marginal value”, you mean a pretty bow? This has got to be what you mean, because an undergraduate student taught in a classroom with 25 other students by a tenured professor, or by a Jeff Sandefer or a Paul Burka, has got to be a better learning experience than being lumped in with a 100 or more students being lectured to by a grad student. See?
Reply »
Texas Tornado says:
Good job, Burka, in shining a bright light on Perry’s scandalous attempts to dumb-down UT. Senators who voted to confirm unqualified, puppet regents should be held accountable. Powers and Cigarroa are champions of excellence and quality and need to be supported not harrassed. It’s good to see so many comment here in support of world class research at UT. Those who don’t get it why Texas benefits from having three prestigious research institutions should probably stay out of the conversation and read more. As your subsequent post showcases too well, not only is Perry a national embarrassment, he is not to be entrusted with safeguarding the future vitality of the Texas economy, of which UT, Rice and TAMU are major pillars. He needs to be retired, the sooner the better.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Expect Perry to retire by not seeking re-election in 2014 and leave the Texas Governor’s Mansion in disgrace on January 20, 2015 because his political career was FINISHED the day he couldn’t name 3 federal agencies he wanted to abolish.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Much of the piece was on how undergraduates are taught and how the model might need updating, but most here just want to keep on railing against the questions being raised about compensation and a means to determine an employee’s worth to the university.
Reply »
Carla says:
Can’t read the article because not subscribed – but I hope it talks about Wendy Gramm (of Enron fame) and the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
There was a great study done at the University of Pennsylvania about the relationship between public policy and university performance.
Times are extremely scary in Public higher education and Rick Perry is at the head of the zombie apocalypse pack.
Reply »
Be A Longhorn says:
I don’t get how reformers see turning UT into a diploma mill makes it a better university. Don’t we have community colleges for people who need to keep costs down and require a career/trade focus?
UT needs to be more selective — not less selective — and have a much SMALLER enrollment. UVA in comparison almost functions like a private school.
Texas has a major brain drain of its top students going out of state. If reformers get their way, it will only accelerate the outflow.
Reply »
Milly says:
Let’s see if Mr. Burka, or you, can connect the dots:
http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/randy-best-is-going-to-save-texas%E2%80%99-public-universities-or-get-rich-trying
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Wow. When a company hires a decision maker after said person has helped hand them a pot full of money, flags need to be raised. It happens all too often these days. There needs to be laws against it…but as I’ve said before…the ones who are responsible for writing and passing such laws are some of the major players in quid pro quo deals like this.
This being said, the premise is sound. If you want to educate more people for less moneny, online is the way to do it. I have to agree that you would think that the UT system is fully capable of designing their own program without Mr. Best’s help.
Reply »
BrooksBeast says:
As we look at the future of higher education, I would suggest you seriously look at this site:
http://www.epic2020.org
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
September 23rd, 2012 at 8:13 am
Thank you, Book Beast. One of the most interesting bits of info I have ever been exposed to here on Burkablog. Everyone who has posted on this thread should take a look at this video and pass it on to everyone you know.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Texun, ghostofann, Texas Tornado…would like those of you advocates of current UT flagship gameplan to comment on continuing to build a larger and larger, greatly untapped endowment as a measure of educational worth, while at the same time raising tuitions, and compare it to the system projected in the epic2020.org video, above, that outlines what others project will happen to conventional methods of instruction.
Reply »
Comment on John Johnson's 3:07 says:
I will comment, but I am not one of those three folks.
The endowment is not “untapped.” There is a large amount of land, oil and gas revenues that contribute to the construction of buildings, support of the universities, and help with recruitment of faculty. But it is important to note that the constitutionally mandated endowment of UT (shared with A&M) probably is not going anywhere, but it itself is not growing in terms of acquisition of lands per se.
Philanthropists contribute to the prof endowments because they want to see cancer cured or advance engineering.
I am a fan of UT and A&M. I am also a fan of Trinity, Rice, and smaller institutions. I also like the Kahn Academy and some of the new models. There is no question that there are new methods of teaching and learning, and that is going to be interesting to watch and see what happens. But it will not wipe out all universities from the face of the earth…just the mediocre ones.
I would argue that the threat is not to UT or A&M. There will always be research to be done, and I believe that there will always be people (parents and their children) who wish to invest in the university experience which includes methods of instruction and the delivery of knowledge, but is also much more than that. It is a period of time for social maturity and it is also a place for collaboration. The premier universities allow students to talk to great thinkers, inventors, and leaders, work with them on projects, and foster new ideas. Those are things harder to replicate in the epic2020 model.
But your assumption is also that UT and A&M are stuck and not innovating. I think that is far from the truth. Both places are flipping classrooms, both are changing the learning and teaching experiences, and both do a cruddy job telling people that they are doing so.
We know so little about that epic2020 model of learning, and we know a lot about universities. We know that full time is better than part time for learning. We know that living on campus yields better grades and fewer distractions than living off campus. Just as some people can work from home and many others cannot without the infrastructure and/or accountability, there is a similar thing at play for learning.
If we are only talking about conveying knowledge, that is one thing. But I think there is much more to a college experience than that. I believe the market for the college experience will continue to be strong, at least for the universities who are really good at it. Frankly, there is no deterrent at play to date. If the rising tuitions were a deterrent to the pursuit of UT or A&M, why is UT’s freshman class the largest ever? Why is A&M now more than 50K students? Seems to me the market it not deterred. Were all Texas resident tuitions the same as out of state rates at those schools, it would be a different market, but Texas residents have not seen the tuition spikes of Pennsylvania, California, and other states, in part because we stopped providing dramatic subsidies (more than 1/4 of costs from general revenues) to higher ed a long time ago, making the impact of economic recessions and lower tax receipts less harmful to the economic model of students.
The story that is NOT told in higher education and student debt is this: Tuition is not the primary driver of debt in Texas. The reason the Univ of Houston has grads with low student debt is that so many of their students still live at home. At destination universities like UT, tuition is only 30% of the cost. The cost of living for a student in Austin Texas has increased at TWICE the rate of tuition for the past decade. It ain’t cheap to live in Austin or away from home and go to a university, which is why the “$10,000 degree” never talks about cost of living as a consideration. But if you want to get through in four years, you gotta find a way to be a full-time student.
I think the epic2020 comes into play more for other types of learners. One size does not fit all. But if I were Sul Ross University, I’d really be frightened right now. They lack the critical mass for sustainability and will lend themselves to distributed learning models.
Regarding educational worth, I think endowments tell a part of a story, but not THE story. Just like selectivity of students tell part of a story, but not THE story.
Finally, I think it is
Reply »
Blue Reply:
September 28th, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Thank you. The crisis in student debt is not about tuition as much as it financing a middle class lifestyle for four to six years. In other countries the bachelor’s degree can be completed in three. Moving to that system in the US would save an unbelievable amount of money.
Reply »
Comment on John Johnson's 3:07 says:
Sorry. Meant to delete that last line…
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Thank you for response. Very insightful. I wonder if you overlooked the portion of the video that told the story of the heralded Stanford professor who took his outline for a course on artificial intelligence online. He charged no fees. He had great ideas for determining participation and performance.
When the course was completed, and he realized that he had reached more students in a one semester class than he would teach in a conventional classroom in his lifetime, he resigned and started his own online program. His plans are to continue to offer classes free of charge and then take his top graduates and personally find them jobs for 20% of their first years salary, which will generate him millions.
If this proves successful, the top professors will not be employed by UT, TAMU.
Reply »
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name Reply:
September 23rd, 2012 at 7:24 pm
That is a big if, but if it happens, great. Diffusion of knowledge is a good thing. Regarding online education, the commenter above makes great points and it is a huge mistake to think that top universities are eschewing online education or are threatened by it. In the past year, schools lIke Harvard and Rice have engaged online education firms to get their classes out there. Also, the founder of Khan Academy was the commencement speaker at Rice and MIT this past May. That wouldn’t be the case if students and faculty at those schools were skeptical of his efforts.
Online education will not damage great research institutions or fine liberal arts colleges. They may damage schools that don’t provide much value other than big lecture halls, but if so, so be it. Let a hundred flowers bloom in higher education.
Reply »
BrooksBeast says:
Although I posted the Epic2020 link, I must confess that for some students, a face-to-face traditional model will provide the best path to success. On the other hand, all of higher education must recognize the dramatic impending changes. Much like the Catholic church in teh 1500′s — either reform yourself or be reformed from outside. This will not be your grandfather’s college in the future!
Reply »
Anonymous says:
In response to Milly’s post and piece on Mr. Best paying off all sorts of people in government and decision making positions at state universities, in return for their facilitating the sale of Mr. Best’s online curriculum to the schools they control, I wonder how this can happen. I also want to know why they can’t develop their own programs instead of handing Best’s company hundreds of millions of dollars.
Reply »
Robert Boyd says:
“Comment on John Johnson’s 3:07″ sort of addressed this, but it’s not something that Burka’s article spoke to (beyond accusations by the reformers that professors were paid too much) or anyone here has really explained. Why has the cost of higher education gone up faster than the rate of inflation? I don’t believe it’s because professors are getting fantastic new salaries–I know some professors, and they seem solidly middle class in their lifestyles. (And as an aside, I seriously doubt that replacing professors with a bunch of adjunct professors with no benefits would actually improve the overall quality of education–although I’m sure there are some fine adjunct professors.)
So if professor salaries haven’t been rising at rates substantially greater than the inflation rate, what the expenses on a college campus are rising faster than inflation? Are there more administrators now? More staff? More perks?
I understand that state universities have over the years gotten less money from the state and have had to raise tuition accordingly. But the inflation of the costs to attend universities has gone up across the board–private and public. Assuming that increases of costs to students reflects increases in operating costs for universities, what accounts for this?
Reply »
John Johnson says:
I’m a bit disappointed that this thread is going to die with Mr. Boyd’s question unanswered by those posting who have shown to be advocates for the current system. No comments back from them regarding Milly and BrookBeast’s posts have me wondering if they were made aware of all this for the first time here, and are a bit floored by it all.
Reply »
Education Inflation says:
Robert, I think the answer includes some fluff, some appropriate investments, and some “education inflation” It is a combination of a number of factors.
First, as you point out, there is a declining state investment in higher ed. A delta is made up in tuition.
Second, there are costs beyond inflation but education inflation. Education is a facility intensive industry, and construction following 9/11 and Katrina has been above the rate of inflation in general because of the spikes in material costs like steel, dry wall, etc. Some economists have come to call this education inflation to reflect the slightly different economic model.
Third, frankly, there really wasn’t a check on the system. It was a pure market force with nothing holding it back. In fact, it was augmented by the easy access to Pell Grants and loans with unprecedented demand and pursuit of higher education. While the public and private colleges were complicit, no one exploited these government funds the way that the for-profit college industry did.
Fourth, there is a related market force of education-PLUS. That is to say that recruitment of students included extra facilities and lifestyle accommodations, at least at the campuses who were competing for students. So non classroom costs are built not necessarily into tuition, but into fees, which are often calculated in these reports.
Fifth, I think there was a spike in competition for the award winning, prestigious professors. In Texas, prof pay is augmented by philanthropic endowments, so that doesn’t always translate into a student cost, but it does in other states, and it certainly increased the base and incremental pay at some schools
Finally, the other driver of college costs is that lower student/teacher ratios are important to ratings, and they are also important to the college experience. There are academic advisors and counselors that–while some may dismiss as being administrative overhead–are increasingly important to helping students complete in four years and especially in helping first generation college students succeed. Investment in that infrastructure is important. Higher ed under-invested in that area for decades and in playing catch-up.
I am sure there are other drivers, but those I think are the biggies. But it doesn’t take much of the intentional investments to bump tuition over the rate of inflation even if the college is otherwise frugal.
KEEP IN MIND, the listed tuition is not what most people pay. Rice is seriously aided by endowments so few students actually pay that amount. At public universities, 20-45% of the student body pay less than 25% of the listed tuition. So while it is politically expedient to blame everything on tuition and claim you are attacking the source, it is a lot more nuanced than that.
Reply »
Not Floored says:
JJ, not floored and not new. 2020 is interesting but it is like the Segway when it was first being introduced–it overcommits to the transformation that will take place. We see this a lot in k12 education–charters, merit pay, etc. We are always just one killer app policy away from the silver bullet that doesn’t really exist.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
September 25th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Surely, you are not comparing the slow transformation in K12 to be a precursor of what we can expect at the university level.
You would see the number of public schools take a nosedive if $ were vouchered back to parents. That is the only thing that has held up change at this level…who controls the money.
The change at the university level will be driven solely by the lower cost to the student, the ability of the top professors to make substantially more money, and the business world being convinced that they are getting new hires from online programs that are every bit as educated and trained as those going the conventional route. The only difference would be that young people would arrive for their first day on the job without a massive debt burden on their shoulders.
Reply »
Not Floored says:
JJ, given the binary–massive debt vs none and the perfect job–it is hard to deny your argument. But I don’t think it is that black and white. And the model is not debt free–it is 20% of the first year’s salary. A rose by any other name…
I think you are OVER-estimating how entrepreneurial all professors are. Many of them live for the classroom interaction, peer collaboration, and may not enjoy the virtual teaching experience. One size does not fit all–virtual schools work for some kids, but not all.
To clarify, I am comparing the tendency in education policy in general to over-promise and under-deliver. Not everyone bought a Segway, but it was a remarkable technological innovation at the time. If we had no transportation in the world, and no roads and related automotive infrastructure, it would have changed the world overnight. But there is legacy infrastructure and habits.
I think you are also ignoring other stakeholders in the mix–parents, philanthropists, businesses, etc. It will take generations to change a bias toward a traditional system. While some businesses may hire from that pool, there is less uncertainty and lower risks in the traditional hiring paths. For my kids, I’d tell them that the $23K in average debt is not a bad investment for them.
FYI: Vouchers are no more THE silver bullet for public education than those others were (charters, merit pay, etc) or we’d be seeing definitive evidence in other states. (We aren’t.) But you are right–if you gave every person with a child $9K a year and said good luck, it would implode public education without any accountability, and then the folks without any kids would get a little testy, but have at it.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
I think our education system from top to bottom is antiquated and not delivering value for the dollar…. especially in K-12. It needs total revamping.
You make some very valid points and express yourself well. I just respectfully disagree.
Reply »
Not Floored says:
JJ, does it need total revamping? Yes. We agree on that.
But realistically, do we have the political will to do so? I don’t believe so. We can’t even agree on what authority should be in charge–state, fed, local.
Change is incremental except for during war and economic collapse.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Agree
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Texas is ranked number 25 university in world. Cal Berk number 9 and UCLA 13.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012-13/world-ranking
Reply »
Somebodywhoknows says:
1. On-line learning is a cruel joke which preys on the uneducated minds. The promises of the on-line model are quickly stripped away by the reality of a thin, ill conceived curriculum.
2. The University experience of face to face teaching and learning will always be superior to the alternative.
3. Reformers are interested in generating profits, only. They have almost succeeded in destroying K-12 (Chinese investors are pumping $ into US charter schools) and now they want to destroy our universities.
Great article, Paul. Hope some of our zombie politicians will open their eyes before it is too late. Unfortunately, they pledge allegiance to Rick Perry instead of our US and state Constitution.
Reply »