In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 228
Online now 213 Record: 7224 (2/22/2012)
The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns
The place for off topic discussion on Hookem
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Hopefully a degree from UT will still be worth something in two years.
Frank Erwin set Texas back a decade. It looks like the new slate of regents is poised to do even worse.
I'm confused as to what the extent of this fight is about. I know Perry wants to make tuition at state schools like UT and A&M less expensive, but is he also trying to water down admissions standards as well? Or is it basically he wants less costly education at state universities and Powers wants it to cost more?
I'm confused as well.
What exactly is wrong--unworkable--about UT's educational model? The school is as highly regarded as ever. Powers is now the president-elect of the AAU. That's a position he wouldn't have attained if the model he oversees is somehow faulty. If anything, that appointment suggests Powers is regarded by his peers as a preeminent mind in higher ed. Actually, it doesn't merely suggest that; it directly says that--explicitly.
What the hell does Rick Perry know about higher ed? Dude's never worked in it, and his of 2.5 GPA studying Animal Science suggests he's never given a damn about it.
I really don't understand this. And there's no simple explanation. It's not animus for UT--that's too transparent. Is Perry just retarded?
You are being too kind.
This man couldn't find his ass with both hands.
Powers is a tremendous administrator and academic scholar of the first class.
Perry is well he is an aggie.
That school is a joke to the rest of the country it is a radical right rural racist institution as well as is Perry.
To think that this man could tarnish a Public Ivey such as our University is not only absurd it is sickening.
He's a corrupt politician and this is/was the pet cause of one of his largest donors Jeff Sanderfor. I'm guessing his whole push for online education will benefit the pockets of his donors, also. I don't think he expected this bright a spotlight to be shined on things, but at this point now it's just about winning to him.
There are three answers to this:
1) In browncountry's tiny brain, his kid didn't get into UT and all he can figure out is that this must be the fault of Power and "elite" professors that don't teach enough. You and I know that one has very little to do with the other. The simple fact is the population of the state is growing and the university is of a finite size. When I came to visit as a high school senior in 1997, the news that day was that UT had the largest enrollment of any school in the country -- complete with the Daily Texan headline "Damn, we're big." Power's predecessor cut the 50k number down slightly and since then there has been an effort to keep the population constant. At this point it is a matter of supply and demand -- as demand (population) goes up and supply remains constant, it gets tougher to get admitted to the University of Texas at Austin.
The answer to the problem of rising demand for college from the State of Texas' point of view should have nothing to do with UT-Austin. The answer should be leave UT and aTm alone, nurture the efforts of UH and UNT to become the third and fourth tier 1 research schools in the state, and make sure every student that wants to go to college can by focusing on Texas State, Sam Houston State, the community college system, etc. The notion that UT-Austin should be available to every student in the state is moronic.
2) If Perry were to succeed and cripple the University's research mission, UT would drop in national rankings, and the top rated students in Texas would begin to flee the states. Those students would either (1) never come back to Texas, hurting Texas industry, or (2) come back to Texas, get the best jobs, and have no desire to hire UT-Austin grads since elite students don't go there anymore. Of course, if this were the case, with the elite students not interested in UT, there would be more space for browncountry's kid. So there's your tenuous link.
3) "Tuition is too high" is a simple message that Perry thinks applies to his rural base both within the state and nationally. He thinks he can run for president by bragging about how he took on the California academic in Texas and won. It doesn't matter that his policy would damage the state and doesn't stand up to any amount of critical reasoning.
This is when I thoroughly enjoy you posting on this board! You've made some of the same assertions that I made in my direct letter to our State Senators. You seem to be in the same category of many recent Aggie Alumni who do not claim Governor Perry as one of their own.
Not at all. I don't mean incompetent or misguided. I mean cognitively deficient at best, and disabled at worst.
There's nothing the state of Texas gains by eliminating Powers--at least not on the basis that his vision for UT academics is wrong. There's just no proof that it is. And if Perry wants to assert his new model as superior, the state's original (not only :)) flagship university is not the proper subject for the experiment. Suggesting otherwise makes literally no sense.
Where is Ciggaroa in this? Has he indicated his stance?
This post was edited by WithoutRecourse 13 months ago
Just found this link which explains a lot of the Perry's goals in detail....
Decent write-up. One issue.
"The governor wants to create a controversy [in the Longhorn AD] where none exists. If he can make UT athletics look out of control, he can blame Powers."
I think the more proper statement is that Perry is looking to exploit a real controversy as a subterfuge to remove Powers. Perry didn't manufacture the Kearney and Applewhite incidents. But he is using them to achieve his end goal.
The Lt. Governor appears to have gotten the message and continues to criticize this exercise by the regents, though I would note he has yet to mention the Governor at all as being part of it. That's not exactly surprising simply because this is still politics and I wonder just how far Senate and House Republicans are willing to go in what would clearly be viewed as a rebuke of Perry? That could be a dangerous exercise politically if there aren't a clear majority of legislators (particularly republican) in both chambers willing to stand up to him.
Just Google "Jeff Sandefer former adjunct professor of UT" and read some of the old articles. The thumbnail is Sandefer is a business man that was an adjunct professor in the UT business school. He may have even been good at it. But ultimately, he claims he got pushed out because UT wanted to hire more tenured positions. Based on his extremely limited experience, he came up with "Seven Break-through Solutions" that he thought would make higher education more cost-effective. They basically boil down to getting rid of research and paying professors almost exclusively based on how popular they are with students. He gives a lot of money to Perry and so Perry has bought into the seven solutions. Perry has already started pushing them on A&M, which earned A&M a rebuke by the American Association of Universities. Powers has strongly resisted implementation of the "solutions" so Perry wants him out. Perry is trying to do everything he can to force Powers out.
Oh, and Perry tries to spin this and sell it to his constituents by claiming it is all an effort to lower tuition.
Lower tuition at what cost? How do you pay the best minds in the world to come and educate at ut if the system can't afford to pay them their worth? Perry wants to cut funding for the flagship university and then cut tuition that is needed to pay top educators. It's a horrible policy. All we can do is vote this prick out --- been saying that for many years.
Holding a special session of the Regents to discuss a one off issue that had been dealt with years earlier seems to fall into the "creating" category.
I don't dispute that UT is a special a place that attracts some of the best educative minds in the country, but let's be honest, the price to get that education has skyrocketed over the past 10-15 years, not only in Texas, but across the country as a whole. That has nothing to do with who the governor of this state is. I tend to agree that tuition needs to be reigned in. I just completed my masters degree and when I owe more money on my educational loans (undergrad and grad) than I do on my home today, that's not exactly living the American dream. Yes, I made the choice to attend my university and yes, I knew the price of tuition going in and yes, I will learn to cut back like everyone else in order to pay those loans back, but it's not as if students can shop around these days for "the better bargain". I would also add that price doesn't necessarily always reflect quality and so many student graduates today are now are left with massive loans strapped to them for what seems like a lifetime, that often get in the way of preventing future purchases with respect to their own way of living until those loans are fully paid off. You ask the question, lower tuition, but at what cost? I'll give you the answer.If this country wants more educated individuals within its ranks to compete in the labor force and increase our productivity as a whole, it better start reigning in tuition costs, because frankly, it's getting more difficult for people to even look at attending college these days with the out of control tuition prices. Where is the limit? You can call it what you want. You may say it has a lot to do with paying talented professors. I say it has a lot to do with paying off/keeping the Administrative bureaucracy that has entrenched itself in public and higher education now more than ever.
If this is a fight to reign in tuition across the board within the state, then Perry wins hands down and I think a large majority of the public would agree with him on that issue. The problem however is he has taken an egotistical approach with those who disagree with him (Powers for example) and turned in to some personal vendetta.that has caused him to lose whatever advantage he had going in. Today, his argument comes across has being petty, immature and coercive in nature. In the end, he may end up winning the war, but so far Powers is winning the battle in the minds of many and rightfully so. That's why I support President Powers. He deserves better than this and despite what I think of his views on college tuition, he certainly has done a great deal to lead UT and maintain it's standing as a respectable institution of learning across this country and abroad.
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by txhookem78 13 months ago
It was dealt with years ago, yes. But had it come to the attention of Powers years ago? The regents? And even if it did, what makes it relevant now is the Kearney situation. She's obviously alleging impermissible relationships in the AD were pervasive. Opening up the issue again in light of that isn't particularly unreasonable.
I don't really have an opinion. And I think Perry is trying to exploit the hell out of this to execute his personal vendetta--which puts him in the wrong regardless of whether he manufactured the controversy.
to be honest if powers supports dodds then he can GTFO imo. I no this is not what this is about and I realize what perry is trying to do and do not agree with it. I also realize these are 2 separate issues.
But dodds needs to be shown the door and if powers won't do then he needs to go.
Thanks for the info fellas. That's a compelling argument.
Is there an echo in here?
This is an understandable sentiment, but remember that if you let the position of the AD determine the job of the UT president, then the progress UT has made to being a top-flight institution will burn to the ground.
In other words, if you hire someone to replace Powers who only focuses on athletics, you'll end up with a worse university, which will then lead to a worse athletic department.
I think you can find someone who focuses on both can't you?
This article is somewhat dated (2009) but is still illustrative of one major reason as to why tuition has been increasing so rapidly:
"Since 1990,state support for UT Austin’s academic budget has grown by 1.9% annually. When
adjusted for inflation, it has actually decreased by 1% per year. Tuition now surpasses state
general revenue as a source of funding for the academic enterprise at UT Austin."
The Texas state government wants to have its cake and eat it too, it wants total control without footing the bill and provide the financial support it is deserved. If state support has been shrinking when correcting for inflation, imagine how much it's been dwindling when you also correct for GDP growth.
It's not an understandable sentiment at all. It's a ridiculous sentiment. The academic standing of my university is a hell of a lot more important than whether the president is willing to fire the AD.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports