In Monday's newspaper, it was reported that UT-Dallas would like to include itself in the caliber of UT-Austin and Texas A&M. This would mean require an increase in funding from the state. The UT-Dallas president has suggested that the legislature allocate $210 million per year that the universities could access to implement ideas geared toward tier-one status. He then proposed that the schools raising the most funds from private and community fundraisers would get larger shares of the apportioned money. Besides UT Dallas, there are six other universities competing for top-tier status: Texas Tech, University of Houston, University of North Texas, UT Arlington, UT El Paso, and UT San Antonio.
In today's op-ed section, the Statesman insists that while the state does need additional top-tier universities, this goal will not be attainable in the next 10-15 years. Additionally, it is unlikely that the state would be able to fund the necessary measures to take these universities to the next level. Once the politics comes into play, there is even more at steak. Universities foster economic growth, meaning all legislators will fight for this piece of the pie when the time comes to distribute additional funding. In the near future, the state will have to inspect which universities will receive additional funding towards achieving these goals.
While ultimately, it would be ideal for Texas to top the nation in world-class institutions of higher learning, the legislature will have to inspect how these efforts will impact the state's overall higher education goals. Will focusing on the creation of top-tier universities take away funding from college prep programs or community colleges?
Each of the universities mentioned as top-tier contenders serve populations much different from that of UT and A&M. While world fame is important, it might be illogical to assume that every high school graduate seeking college entry cold compete at a top-tier university. Should that be the goal that we focus on first?
1 comment:
What a great comment Jessica! While it is asserted that research-one institutions build the economy in their communities, I don't totally buy that. Colleges dont' have to be research institutions to prepare a growing and changing workforce. They bring other types of jobs and other types of community partnerships. I believe the desire to have more research universities in Texas is a game of prestige, appealing to rankings. In a state that is doing well economically already compared to the rest of the U.S., I hope the true rationale for this push is not missed. Obviously research is a good pursuit, however, it often has very little to do with student learning, and more about prestige, faculty recruitment, alumni dollars, etc.
Also to the point about populations of students served, UT and TAMU do not have the best records of serving the significant low-income and minority populations in this state compared to other members of the UT and A&M systems. Institutions the nation over have a variety of missions, some for research, some for preparing Ph.D.s, some for preparing undergraduates in the liberal arts, some for retooling the skills of second-time learnings (HS drop-outs, workers in dying industries, mothers rejoining the workforce). these missions are all extremely valuable in the universe of universities and colleges. there is no "should" in the number of research institutions a state has. Texas would be better served looking at what the positive connections are between its higher education institutions now, the links to economic sustainability in a down economy, how to educate the majority of its population, and go from there.
Post a Comment