Started By
Message
re: Thanks to SEC and Heisman - A&M receives record 37,000 applications
Posted on 2/1/13 at 2:02 am to aggressor
Posted on 2/1/13 at 2:02 am to aggressor
quote:
I mean does it make sense to have $50 Billion or so in endowments tied up in 2 schools that stay fixed at 50k students each while the other public schools in Texas likely have a combined endowment of a couple of Billion?
You seem to be very learned in this subject, and earlier in your post, you mentioned "systems" several times in relation to the PUF, but later, you wrote the above, so I'd like to offer a correction.
Just to clarify... the PUF is split between several schools in the UT and A&M systems (but not all of them), not just the Austin and College Station campus, and has been since 1984.
Some years, UT Arlington gets more money for construction than UT Austin. Since the funds can only be used for construction (for the most part), it depends on the construction needs of the system-eligible schools (I'm leaving out the "excellence funds" that UT Austin and A&M College Station and Prairie View A&M receive from the PUF, which does put them ahead of the other schools in overall PUF funding).
"Other" state schools have their own fund, called the Higher Education Assistance Fund, which admittedly is not near as large as the Permanent University Fund.
For those reading, the Permanent University Fund (PUF) is the oil lease money that has enriched The University of Texas and A&M since the 20's and 30's -- the Legislature gave The University of Texas sole authority over a couple million acres of what was then relatively worthless ranching land out in West Texas upon which oil was later discovered.
The interest from those holdings goes into the "Available University Fund," which is then disbursed.
A&M, despite being the agricultural and mechanical branch of The University of Texas under the Texas Constitution, has maintained a separate board of regents since the beginning, and has long maintained that in practice it was certainly not a branch of The University of Texas.
But within the decade of oil discovery on PUF lands, A&M turned tack and demanded a share of the funds Constitutionally directed toward The University of Texas (in short, they wanted the privileges of UT System membership without actually being a member, but that's another story...), which led to the 2/3 UT, 1/3 A&M split, which as I said earlier was opened up yet again to other (but not all) UT and A&M system schools in 1984.
Now let's cover nuclear reactors on campus... That isn't so special. Several universities have nuclear reactors on campus:
Idaho State University
Iowa State University
Kansas State University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Missouri University of Science and Technology
North Carolina State University
Ohio State University
Oregon State University
Penn State University
Purdue University
Reed College
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission/University of Rhode Island
Texas A&M University
University of Arizona
University of California-Davis
University of California, Irvine
University of Florida
University of Maryland, College Park
University of Massachusetts Lowell
University of Missouri
University of New Mexico
University of Texas at Austin
University of Utah
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Washington State University
LINK
And as for having one of the largest contiguous campuses in terms of area in the United States...
Someone mentioned Berry College in Georgia, which has 28,000 acres.
The Air Force Academy has 18,500 acres.
U.S. Military Academy -- 16,000 acres.
Paul Smith's College (a private school in upstate New York) has 14,000 acres.
The University of the South (Sewanee) has 13,000 acres.
Penn State has 8,500 acres.
Stanford has more than 8,000 acres.
Duke U. has 8,000 acres.
The University of California-Davis has 7,300 acres (I'm not sure this is contiguous, though).
Michigan State has 5,200 acres.
There may be others... but nonetheless, A&M does not have the largest campus in the country at 5,200 acres, it is at best just outside the top 10.
And as an aside, I agree that the top-10/8 percent rule is the elephant in the room when discussing limiting enrollment.
TL;DR? FU.
This post was edited on 2/1/13 at 2:11 am
6
Posted on 2/1/13 at 2:02 am to texashorn
Also, thank you all for your thoughtful responses.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 2:05 am to texashorn
Posted on 2/1/13 at 6:04 am to texashorn
quote:
But within the decade of oil discovery on PUF lands, A&M turned tack and demanded a share of the funds Constitutionally directed toward The University of Texas (in short, they wanted the privileges of UT System membership without actually being a member, but that's another story...), which led to the 2/3 UT, 1/3 A&M split, which as I said earlier was opened up yet again to other (but not all) UT and A&M system schools in 1984.
A&M was founded 7 years before tu. I don't see how this bit of history blinds sip idiocy. The funds for which were established under the Morril Land Grant Act. So unless tu opened in 1876 as a Land-Grant College, and the Board of Regents were all figments of people's imagination, the Texas Constitution simply envisioned one system for the state, but was never actually able to see that to fruition from the very beginning, and subsequent legislative actions verified such, and which is why, most explicitly, a brand new board of regents was formed for tu, 7 years after A&M opened. If you want to be technical about the first written piece of legislature establishing our two schools, and fitting a rigid definition to an ambigious act, technically the Morril Act of 1862 funds set aside for Texas A&M came before the Texas Constitution of 1876. But in reality we both know that much like every other state with a land grant school, the schools were separate and different. If not, is to imply that tu opened in 1876 on the land that is now College Station.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 7:00 am to texashorn
quote:
The Air Force Academy has 18,500 acres.
U.S. Military Academy -- 16,000 acres.
Yeah. They are military facilities...
quote:
Penn State has 8,500 acres.
Meh. University Park is only 1.51 square miles, which is under 1000 acres. If you include the 18 other campuses Penn State has, that is how you reach that 8,500 figure.
quote:
Stanford has more than 8,000 acres.
Stanford is interesting case. They make a huge deal about being in Stanford, CA, not Palo Alto. Stanford, CA is under 2,000 acres. Part of the 8,000 acres they claim is land they own, but they don't own or operate any of the buildings and let them exist as a part of Palo Alto. At some point they got in financial trouble and wanted to sell land they couldn't technically sell, so you are stuck with the situation where Stanford's campus, isn't really a campus. At least a mall held by Simon Property Group where a Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom sell clothes, but don't hold classes counts as part of "campus". As well as part of that 2,000 some odd acres being the Stanford Industrial Park. Most people wouldn't need a Hewlett Packard employee badge in order to gain access 2.000 acres of your campus.
quote:
Duke U. has 8,000 acres.
Duke is considered to have a West Campus(720 acres), an east campus(97 acres), a central campus(122 acres), and a medical center(210 acres). The rest of it is Duke Forest, which isn't touchable for campus purposes.
quote:
The University of California-Davis has 7,300 acres (I'm not sure this is contiguous, though).
It is essentially contiguous.
quote:
There may be others... but nonetheless, A&M does not have the largest campus in the country at 5,200 acres, it is at best just outside the top 10.
For a flagship, continguous campus that can actually be used for practical college purposes, it is definitely top 10. Pure acreage isn't the only metric we should use, and if you weren't a biased sip, you would realize that while A&M's claim that it is one of the largest campuses in the country might not be completely accurate from a google earth satellite... it truly is one of the largest campuses in the country.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 8:51 am to texashorn
texashorn,
I actually spent the time to go through your TLDR post and you did an amazing job of not addressing the real points of any of the discussion.
I pointed out that Texas and A&M both have their own systems that they spend PUF money on, just as you did. The key is what they do with that money. It is true that Texas in some years spends more money on the System schools but that's a year to year thing. The more relevant issue for Texas is they don't like to spend the money at all but instead hoard it to continue to grow it where it is now twice the size of any other public school. Powers has been especially vocal in opposing any action to allow the school to spend the money on anything outside of its original charter. Instead Texas likes to charge more in tuition and fees and more recently get the taxpayers of Austin to pay for a new teaching hospital instead of using that PUF money.
You actually make my point for me. Texas doesn't see the PUF as taxpayer money or belonging to the People of the State of Texas. They see it as THEIR money. They don't ever want to spend THEIR money when they can just get it from others. They would rather let the PUF grow into the stratosphere so they can go around bragging about all that cash. They hate to spend anything from the PUF no matter how much strain is on Texas taxpayers due to our growth as a State and no matter how much the PUF continues to grow because of the price of oil and rare minerals and the expansion in the types of extraction going on with the PUF lands. A&M at least spends their money wisely, their endowment is still enormous and growing but they are building like crazy and expanding in virtually ever college.
Bringing up the Texas Constitution just shows your ignorance as well. You might as well talk about how the US Constitution originally had the Vice President as the 2nd largest vote getter or maybe the 3/5ths Compromise. Both were poorly conceived ideas that were soon amended. A&M and Texas are both Flagship schools with different missions and the PUF never has belonged to the Texas System, it belongs to the PEOPLE OF TEXAS who allow A&M and Texas to use that money.
Bringing up the Higher Education Assistance Fund only emphasizes that point. For instance the Texas System has a $17 Billion Dollar Endowment. The A&M System has a $7 Billlion Dollar Endowment. Then you go to Tech's System with less than a $900 Million Endowment. The PUF is the big pot of money, the Leg certainly isn't going to appropriate a big new source of funding anytime soon. Thus that money needs to be spent for what it was intended for, to provide for a high quality education for as many Texans as possible. It wasn't designed for A&M and Texas to sit on the cash even when it is growing at over 20% per year and extract more money from taxpayers for growth.
I don't know what your point is on the campus size issue. A&M Is one of the larger campuses in the country, that's factual. There are others that are larger but most of that is farm land or in the case of the AFA land used for military training. Beyond the dick measuring, the key is A&M has the land to grow to easily have as many students as they want. Texas could do so but it is much more challenging due to the growth of Austin and thus the growth would require repurposing a lot of land (personally I'm really bummed that Lions GC is going away, best Muni in Austin by a mile).
I actually spent the time to go through your TLDR post and you did an amazing job of not addressing the real points of any of the discussion.
I pointed out that Texas and A&M both have their own systems that they spend PUF money on, just as you did. The key is what they do with that money. It is true that Texas in some years spends more money on the System schools but that's a year to year thing. The more relevant issue for Texas is they don't like to spend the money at all but instead hoard it to continue to grow it where it is now twice the size of any other public school. Powers has been especially vocal in opposing any action to allow the school to spend the money on anything outside of its original charter. Instead Texas likes to charge more in tuition and fees and more recently get the taxpayers of Austin to pay for a new teaching hospital instead of using that PUF money.
You actually make my point for me. Texas doesn't see the PUF as taxpayer money or belonging to the People of the State of Texas. They see it as THEIR money. They don't ever want to spend THEIR money when they can just get it from others. They would rather let the PUF grow into the stratosphere so they can go around bragging about all that cash. They hate to spend anything from the PUF no matter how much strain is on Texas taxpayers due to our growth as a State and no matter how much the PUF continues to grow because of the price of oil and rare minerals and the expansion in the types of extraction going on with the PUF lands. A&M at least spends their money wisely, their endowment is still enormous and growing but they are building like crazy and expanding in virtually ever college.
Bringing up the Texas Constitution just shows your ignorance as well. You might as well talk about how the US Constitution originally had the Vice President as the 2nd largest vote getter or maybe the 3/5ths Compromise. Both were poorly conceived ideas that were soon amended. A&M and Texas are both Flagship schools with different missions and the PUF never has belonged to the Texas System, it belongs to the PEOPLE OF TEXAS who allow A&M and Texas to use that money.
Bringing up the Higher Education Assistance Fund only emphasizes that point. For instance the Texas System has a $17 Billion Dollar Endowment. The A&M System has a $7 Billlion Dollar Endowment. Then you go to Tech's System with less than a $900 Million Endowment. The PUF is the big pot of money, the Leg certainly isn't going to appropriate a big new source of funding anytime soon. Thus that money needs to be spent for what it was intended for, to provide for a high quality education for as many Texans as possible. It wasn't designed for A&M and Texas to sit on the cash even when it is growing at over 20% per year and extract more money from taxpayers for growth.
I don't know what your point is on the campus size issue. A&M Is one of the larger campuses in the country, that's factual. There are others that are larger but most of that is farm land or in the case of the AFA land used for military training. Beyond the dick measuring, the key is A&M has the land to grow to easily have as many students as they want. Texas could do so but it is much more challenging due to the growth of Austin and thus the growth would require repurposing a lot of land (personally I'm really bummed that Lions GC is going away, best Muni in Austin by a mile).
Posted on 2/1/13 at 1:25 pm to texashorn
You're a misinformed little bitch.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News