Prop. 4: Discriminatory, Expensive, UnnecessarySubmitted by Ronald Trowbridge on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 1:01pm.
Texans will soon be asked to transfer money from Texas’ Permanent Higher Education Fund to a new National Research University Fund. But voters should reject this constitutional amendment, Proposition 4, and reject the transfer of money. If anything, we should demand that lawmakers instead transfer a fair share of these funds to other colleges and universities throughout Texas. The proposed National Research University Fund would be restricted to dispersing those funds to just seven “emerging research institutions”: Texas Tech, University of Houston, University of North Texas, UT- Arlington, UT-Dallas, UT-El Paso, and UT-San Antonio. This new fund is currently estimated to be worth $450 million. The investment earnings are expected to grow to $2 billion before any of the seven institutions become eligible to receive distributions. Why should just seven universities in Texas have an exclusive kitty of $2 billion? The public should find this exclusivity unacceptable and unfair, indeed a gross discrimination against the balance of colleges and universities throughout Texas. A recent exhaustive study, reviewing three decades of research and culminating in an 800-page tome entitled “How College Affects Students,” shatters the bedrock foundation of our conventional assumptions about higher education, including large research universities. I cite three findings, among others. One, elite schools do not have more impact on student growth than do ordinary schools. Two, excellent students will excel later wherever they attend college. Three, expensive and elite schools are not necessarily educationally better than relatively inexpensive schools. This means that going, say, to the University of Texas does not necessarily mean that students will get a better education there than at a cheaper, even unheralded, local school. At large research universities in Texas, many professors teach only two classes a week but make an annual salary of some $90, 000, plus 30 percent in fringes. Of course, these professors will argue in response that they’re freed to do research and publication. Yet does this benefit the students, and does it matter? Former Harvard president Derek Bok reveals in his appropriately entitled book “Our Underachieving Colleges” that “fewer than half of all professors publish as much as one article per year.” Bok also reveals that universities act like “compulsive gamblers and exiled royalty; there is never enough money to satisfy their desires.” They expand divisions, departments, faculty, staff, buildings, maintenance services—which become unfunded liabilities later driving up costs for students, parents, and taxpayers. So of course these seven institutions want more money transferred to them by Prop. 4. But satiety will never be met. Prop. 4 would amend the Texas constitution to mandate exclusivity and permanence of $2 billion, more or less, depending on investment growth, to just seven schools. Proponents of Prop. 4 argue that expansion of research universities is necessary to reduce brain drain to schools in other states. Yet research universities cannot lay claim to cornering the brain market in Texas. Moreover, nothing keeps a Texan who is educated in another state from returning home. The average SAT score at the seven universities in question is a combined 1080—mediocre scores at best. Why are we worried about brain drain? Finally, Prop. 4 will encourage further reliance on taxpayers rather than private section funding. As professors vacate the classroom to seek government research grants, their vacuum will be filled by very young and inexperienced teaching assistants. There is some truth in John Ciardi’s observation, “A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students .” Ronald L. Trowbridge, Ph. D., is a research fellow at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. A former Vice President at Hillsdale College, Trowbridge also headed the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at the U.S. Information Agency. Bookmark/Search this post with: |
Join Empower Texans Today!Most Recent Postings
|
Delicious
Digg
Technorati
Re:
As a proud graduate of Henderson State University, I wholeheartedly agree with you on one point... "expensive and elite schools are not necessarily educationally better than relatively inexpensive schools." In fact, it is often the case that students at those schools may get a higher quality education.
HOWEVER, we live in the real world, and we know that education level is only part of the puzzle. Students at the larger more elite schools are advantaged in that they have access to a better environment for professional development. They are able to meet with more contacts, forge real world relationships more easily, and tend to have a more enhance work situation than students at small schools. At this stage in the state of Texas, The qualities that an increased Tier One system can bring to our state are more important than ever. There are plenty of excellent small schools here, but we have to be able to provide our top-tier students with more top-tier educational opportunities. And that can ONLY happen when we select a group of universities that can move to Tier one. Texas is losing its best and brightest talent to other states because we don't have the high-level university capacity to support them. So like it or not, we've got to grow our Tier one team!
Prop 4
I agree with your evaluation, to the point that I will vote against Prop 4 because I want government out of higher education, and all education, for that matter. However, when will the taxpayers see the dissolution of the TPHEF? Universities and colleges should be self-supporting. Draining the taxpayers of money to support colleges and universities does nothing for taxpayers.
Prop 4
I understand why someone who has an interest in universities not included on the list for Prop 4 funds are upset. However, with all due respect, the universities cited have the established infrastructure to best utilize these funds. Plus, research is very expensive, to 'over distribute' funds to schools means that those schools with viable research programs would not received an amount significant enough for them to further their grow their research.
Vote YES on Proposition 4
curious
I am wondering if Dr. Trowbridge is aware that there is a long history of funding discrimination in Texas through the Permanent University Fund. That fund is for the exclusive use of only the University of Texas System and the Texas A&M System. The fund currently holds over $8 billion in investments and over two million acres primarily in the oil-rich Permium Basin, according to Wikipedia. It appears time to recognize that there are several quality institutions of higher learning in Texas which deserve special funding rather than only two. Of course, the solution that makes much more sense is to allow other qualified universities in Texas share in the largess now enjoyed by only two. But, silly me, a constitutional amendment allowing that requires far more political courage to propose.
I Disagree With Dr. Trowbridge
The Permanent University Fund (PUF) was established by the Texas Constitution in 1876. As others have pointed out the PUF has grown to over $8 billion dollars and has been reserved exclusively for the University of Texas and Texas A&M University for over 130 years. This money has helped these two schools develop some of the finest academic programs in the nation. They are able to provide the finest facilities and attract both the top professors and the top students because of this resource, while other schools across Texas struggle.
This proposition is the first time we have ever been able to get a portion of this vast fortune allocated to any other universities. Such action is long overdue and will help these other schools achieve the same level of excellence achieved by the University of Texas and Texas A&M.
That said, HB51 does not provide the other seven schools with a free ride. They must first meet six criteria established by HB 51 to be eligible for these funds. 1) They must award more than 200 doctoral degrees each year. 2) Their endowment funds must exceed $400 million. 3) They must achieve membership in the Association of Research Libraries or have a chapter of the national honor society Phi Beta Kappa. 4) Their freshman classes must achieve high standards. 5) They must attract high quality faculty. 6) They must establish high quality graduate-level program. In other words, these seven schools must first elevate their programs before they have access to these funds that will facilitate continuation and growth of this level of excellence.
In summary, Proposition 4 and HB 51 will combine to expand and increase the quality of higher education across Texas. This will provide greater opportunities Texas children, increase research across the state, and attract high paying technical jobs to the state. The best part is that it utilizes existing funds, so it will not cost the tax payers of the Texas a dime.
Trowbridge is Clueless
Trowbridge states that the average SAT score of the 7 universities vying for the funds is a combined 1080. A bit misleading. What it doesn't show is the disparity between the Universities involved. At the top, you have Texas Tech University and UT Dallas, who's average SAT scores are nearly on par with Texas A&M despite their lacking scholarship funds to attract National Merit Scholars.
In fact, Businessweek's Top 100 Undergraduate Business Schools shows that students at Texas Tech's Rawls College of Business had higher SAT scores than their counterparts at Texas A&M's Mays School of Business.
While there are a number of schools (UTEP, UNT, UTSA and UT Arlington) that have no business even being considered for the fund, there are several that most certainly do. Texas does need more Tier One level universities and right now, the two (or three) that look most promising are also best positioned to compete for available dollars from the fund.
Texas needs to remain competitive and stave off the "brain drain" that will occur if we continue to neglect these up and coming universities.
Empower should throw Throwbridge back
Throwbridge talks about a combined SAT figure without supporting documentation.
The SAT scores of the students leaving Texas are what we should be talking about, not those staying.
Vote yes on proposition 4
What in the world is Dr. Trowbridge thinking? Two billion for seven universities is not even enough, and this man wants to spread the money even more? Honestly, he is out of touch with the reality of higher education at the national level. Texas needs to be able to compete for the top students. As the parent of a college freshman going to an elite college out of state, I am very familiar with the level of competition going on between universities for the best students. Please, do the right thing, let's move past this community college mentality and make these universities competitive at the national level. We are far behind California. Please, vote Yes on proposition 4.
time has come to give even opportunity
Why does Texas continue to give to the "haves" and keep money from the have not's? UNT and others continue to have a great impact on our education of great students. Why withhold funding to those students and give it to only 2 universities. Are those students not equally entitled the tax dollars that I generate. I am a UNT alumni and employ several people from other universities listed. I am happy to say each brings their own unique talents cultivated by their different backgrounds. I can say that diversity will always win out over a homogenius approach to education. I have not seen any one employee's school excel over another. I actually find that the individual is the most important factor in job development. I can say that each college should have the tools to keep improving their quality of education. Fair share to each public university. As far as the quality of education! I find there is no difference between my AM grad and my UTSA grad. Why give all of my tax dollars to one school?
Well said, Ike Ernst, well
Well said, Ike Ernst, well said. If only...you could put your money where your mouth is!
Trowbridge upholds the good ole boy system
Trowbridge is wrong. His ideas are antiquated and he only seeks to keep discriminatory funding rules alive. Anyone who agrees with him clearly doesn't understand that the students at these 7 universities are viable members of our community and deserve the same things that students at UT and Texas A&M deserve. No wonder we are loosing so many good students to other states.