Todge your frantically trying to save a sinking ship, your attempts of belittlement are an indication of self pitty a shallow soul, one who looks in the mirror and sees desperation of an idiot
I believe that you really believe what your saying is the truest form of reality, just like ISIS fools do

(01-30-2017 11:40 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-30-2017 11:14 AM)coogrfan Wrote:  Hmm.

I believe you are correct in stating that UT would not need legislative approval for the land purchase itself, but Section c of the above states:

Pursuant to a two-thirds vote of the membership of each house of the legislature, institutions of higher education may be created at a later date as a part of The University of Texas System or The Texas A&M University System by general law, and, when created, such an institution shall be entitled to participate in the funding provided by this section for the system in which it is created. An institution that is entitled to participate in dedicated funding provided by Article VII, Section 17, of this constitution may not be entitled to participate in the funding provided by this section

So as I read this (and I could be dead wrong) it seems that UT is required to get the legislature's approval for any new institution prior to using PUF funds to purchase land for said institution.

Would you at least agree that purchasing the land without having received the required legislative approval for any new institution to be built on it (or even telling anyone that the purchase was going to take place until after the fact) seems a bit shady? If I were in the legislature, I would see this as a fairly transparent attempt to present the state with a fait accompli.

but what you are failing to understand is they are NOT creating a new university

they are going to run this campus under the administration of UT Austin and thus it is not a new university

it is no different than UT Austin having the telescope farm in west Texas or having the Marine Center in Port Aransas

https://utmsi.utexas.edu/

the above facility offers both graduate and undergraduate classes and it is fully under the control of UT Austin and in the College of Natural Sciences

as long as the UT-Houston facility is under the control and administration of UT Austin it is not a new university

and along with that if they desire to offer any particular degrees there as long as UT Austin already offers those degrees then there is no need for any approval from anyone for that as well

they are simply NOT looking to open up a full 4 year campus they are looking for something ultimately similar to the SWRI in San Antonio or the OU OKC facility

http://urc.ou.edu/


and when one looks at the OU center you can even see some of the cost and timeline of building it out

http://urc.ou.edu/opportunities/facilities/

1. Section c refers to "institutions of higher education", not "universities". Would a new research campus not fall under that description?

2. The Institute of Marine Science was established in 1941. "In 1973 the Texas legislature authorized the Texas Marine Science Institute as a part of the University of Texas at Austin." https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/kcu27

This would seem to contradict your claim that UT-Austin does not require legislative approval in order to add new institutions to it's system.

3. I cannot help but notice that Oklahoma's research campus, which you cite as an example of what UT has in mind, is within sight of their main campus. Why then should UT's equivalent facility be located 160+ miles from UT-Austin?

You assert that UT-Austin has no intention of establishing a 4 year undergraduate program in Houston. I would respond that by saying that intentions can change.

Todge I'm just trolling you after my first post. If you believe politics are not in play here you're blind. The committee will throw everything to include the kitchen sink at UT for the whole expansion backlash. The project will be shelved for a long time if not completely put away. I personally like McRaven the guy's a badass but all he could do is try and save face for his university. It must've been hard for the first time UT not having its way especially in Texas of all places.

(01-31-2017 09:45 AM)pesik Wrote:  TodgeRodge, my favorite...the man smarter than UH law professors, the head of the texas board of education

now not only are the most powerful legislators in texas dumb, but also members of the university of texas board of regent (aka the school that bought the land) have now publicly come against it....

my guy todge, ut-houston is dying but as always refuses to accept it, as kt would mean he was wrong...and todge is never wrong

like i noted months ago..ut-houston isnt ut-austin, the uta alum dont identify with it or see it as part of them, they arent inclined to protect it (like utsa, utrgv etc..). uth has no alum. UH on the other hand has hundreds of thousands of alum who would be against this as it threats there degree

outside of those involved in the purchase, not one single person in power has come in support of the purchase, while almost every legislator including UT austin alums have come against it

clearly it is not that difficult to be smarter than a UH law professor because I have already shown where the land purchase was 100% legal


the Texas Board of Education has nothing to do with higher education and the THECB that deals with higher education is a powerless organization

senator whitmier is a nobody he is hardly powerful at all he is roundly viewed as a buffoon

and the members of the UT BOR approved the purchase si it is not possible I could be wrong there

and two of the new members have said they have "concerns" which hardly means it is dead and the other new member said he did not have enough information yet to form an opinion which is hardly being against something

so as of now 6 current members of the BOR were there when it was approved and two of the new ones have some questions and one has not formed an opinion

that is dramatically different than something being dead......just like a tweet saying that a university could be considered for the Big 12 id dramatically different than actually saying they will be added or no one will be added


your other attempted points are just nonsense

(01-31-2017 10:02 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  Todge your frantically trying to save a sinking ship, your attempts of belittlement are an indication of self pitty a shallow soul, one who looks in the mirror and sees desperation of an idiot
I believe that you really believe what your saying is the truest form of reality, just like ISIS fools do

well when you repeatedly show others they are wrong and prove with with facts that does not make one desperate nor does it make them like ISIS

it just means they have shown others with intelligence that many that scream and cry and use hyperbole are in fact often wrong and too stupid to ever realize it

(01-31-2017 10:45 AM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(01-30-2017 11:40 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-30-2017 11:14 AM)coogrfan Wrote:  Hmm.

I believe you are correct in stating that UT would not need legislative approval for the land purchase itself, but Section c of the above states:

Pursuant to a two-thirds vote of the membership of each house of the legislature, institutions of higher education may be created at a later date as a part of The University of Texas System or The Texas A&M University System by general law, and, when created, such an institution shall be entitled to participate in the funding provided by this section for the system in which it is created. An institution that is entitled to participate in dedicated funding provided by Article VII, Section 17, of this constitution may not be entitled to participate in the funding provided by this section

So as I read this (and I could be dead wrong) it seems that UT is required to get the legislature's approval for any new institution prior to using PUF funds to purchase land for said institution.

Would you at least agree that purchasing the land without having received the required legislative approval for any new institution to be built on it (or even telling anyone that the purchase was going to take place until after the fact) seems a bit shady? If I were in the legislature, I would see this as a fairly transparent attempt to present the state with a fait accompli.

but what you are failing to understand is they are NOT creating a new university

they are going to run this campus under the administration of UT Austin and thus it is not a new university

it is no different than UT Austin having the telescope farm in west Texas or having the Marine Center in Port Aransas

https://utmsi.utexas.edu/

the above facility offers both graduate and undergraduate classes and it is fully under the control of UT Austin and in the College of Natural Sciences

as long as the UT-Houston facility is under the control and administration of UT Austin it is not a new university

and along with that if they desire to offer any particular degrees there as long as UT Austin already offers those degrees then there is no need for any approval from anyone for that as well

they are simply NOT looking to open up a full 4 year campus they are looking for something ultimately similar to the SWRI in San Antonio or the OU OKC facility

http://urc.ou.edu/


and when one looks at the OU center you can even see some of the cost and timeline of building it out

http://urc.ou.edu/opportunities/facilities/

1. Section c refers to "institutions of higher education", not "universities". Would a new research campus not fall under that description?

2. The Institute of Marine Science was established in 1941. "In 1973 the Texas legislature authorized the Texas Marine Science Institute as a part of the University of Texas at Austin." https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/kcu27

This would seem to contradict your claim that UT-Austin does not require legislative approval in order to add new institutions to it's system.

3. I cannot help but notice that Oklahoma's research campus, which you cite as an example of what UT has in mind, is within sight of their main campus. Why then should UT's equivalent facility be located 160+ miles from UT-Austin?

You assert that UT-Austin has no intention of establishing a 4 year undergraduate program in Houston. I would respond that by saying that intentions can change.

https://www.google.com/search?q=institut...8&oe=utf-8

good night get a clue....really you are attempting to say an institution of higher education is not a university.....you have an IQ of 2

and just because in the past the legislature may have made a line item to fund something that does not change what I have pointed out in the constitution

besides the entire reason the Port Aransas facility was brought up by me was not to show that Ut could or could not build something without state approval (they can it has been shown), but to show that UT Austin has degree and course offering facilities outside of Austin

and they are under the control of Austin...as the Houston campus will be as well

(01-31-2017 11:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  good night get a clue....really you are attempting to say an institution of higher education is not a university.....you have an IQ of 2

I'm questioning your apparent assertion that the term "institution of higher education" is limited solely to 4 year universities. I see no basis for that claim.

(01-31-2017 11:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  and just because in the past the legislature may have made a line item to fund something that does not change what I have pointed out in the constitution

Texas Constitution:

"Pursuant to a two-thirds vote of the membership of each house of the legislature, institutions of higher education may be created at a later date as a part of The University of Texas System or The Texas A&M University System by general law, and, when created, such an institution shall be entitled to participate in the funding provided by this section for the system in which it is created."

Texas State Historical Association

"In 1973 the Texas legislature authorized the Texas Marine Science Institute as a part of the University of Texas at Austin."

That's not a line item appropriation. That clearly indicates that the legislature had to sign off in order for the MSI to become an official part of UT-Austin.

(01-31-2017 11:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  besides the entire reason the Port Aransas facility was brought up by me was not to show that Ut could or could not build something without state approval (they can it has been shown), but to show that UT Austin has degree and course offering facilities outside of Austin...

...and they are under the control of Austin...as the Houston campus will be as well

Section b allows UT to acquire land, but only after the provisions of Section c have been satisfied. Once said authorization has been received UT is free to acquire land as they see fit.

(01-30-2017 06:40 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-30-2017 01:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Maybe. Maybe not. He has said on multiple occasions he "doesnt know" what it will be. Of course, he's also said it wont be a school. Then in the same testimony he said it might offer classes and degrees. He has said it wont replicate anything offered in Houston (though the research hub idea is a complete replication of the 77 acre UH research park). I dont know how he can answer any UT-Houston question difinitively if he starts out with the line "I dont know what it will be". McRaven has said the steering committee will determine its usage and the first report from that committee is due by the end of this month. So, I guess we will see what it going to be.

I dont think there is any appetite at the capitol for any new campus to fund and maintain. My guess is that this environmentally tainted site will still be vacant a decade from now. Hell, 2 of the new UT regents about to come on board dont want it and the third has significant reservations regarding the need for UT-Houston.

he is saying that because he does not want a bunch of political grifters and buffoons to try and take the opportunity to try and cash in on the situation and to try and turn a quality idea into some type of make work nonsense for their moronic constituents

this is part of the reason that UT Austin has the constitutional authority to build facilities without the need for political approval

and just because a place offers degrees that does not make it a full on university with an independent administration

those crappy little system centers that Khator is littering Houston with and using to steal degrees plans/screw over other UH System components offer degrees, but they are not independent universities they are just waste of money and resources doubling down on that a community college could help with

and this will not be a duplication of the UH research park which is mostly a collection of old warehouses and that has failed to really get off the ground

this will have much more room for private companies to collaborate and this will be much more broad based and of course much more successful

and there is nothing about that property that makes it "polluted" that is just more dem coogs doh nonsense trying to fling more coog poo while ignoring the facts and reality

you can see the rest of this thread filled with easily discredited claims about graduation rates and breaking laws as an example of that

you complain about the $20 million or so per year it will cost to pay for the land for this facility and how that money could best be used elsewhere yet you for some reason have no complaints about the use of $19 million dollars EXCLUSIVE of the $7+ million that dem coogs doh bill the students in student fees for athletics......and then you wonder why there is not money available for dem coogs doh to do things

then you have the 600+ new dorm rooms that were sitting there EMPTY in 2015 (and more the year before) eating up system bonding capacity and resulting in other dorm students having to carry that cost of paying for those empty rooms and again you wonder why there is not money available to do things

get your own house in order and try and manage to get your graduation rates at least to the level of Texas State or north Texas state before you start calling others out and let UT take care of the big projects until you can get the little things like athletics and dorm capacity under control......oh yea and screwing system components out of degree plans that they built the reputation of

100% of what dem coogs doh accuse big bad UT UT UT of doing is actually being done by dem coogs doh

and the REALITY is the funding for buying this land and for building the facilities on it will mostly if not all come off the back of UT Austin that money was not and would not be available to any other UT System university (PUF participant or not) much less any non-PUF participant because it is coming off the backs of the "excellence" funding portion of what UT Austin gets from the PUF

if the money was not spent in Houston it would simply be spend somewhere else by UT Austin under their administration

so go and fix UHCL so it is not a joke compared to UTD that was founded at the same time and in a similar fashion at TI instead of at NASA and stop screwing UHV out of degree plans and fix the horrid graduation rates at UHD and UHV and figure out a way to get athletics to have at least an average if not below average academic side subsidy and try and catch up to the horribly run north Texas state in graduation rates much less Texas State and then perhaps people would listen to your dem coogs doh bleatings

(01-30-2017 02:09 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-30-2017 09:18 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  This topic has reached epic status - Todge appeared.

I was wondering why i suddenly had to scroll past a long line of crap.

it has to do with your desire to remain clueless and void of reality and in denial of the facts and the truth of the situation

600+ "new" dorms empty? Another straight up fabrication and hyperbole from the king of BS. No "new" dorms were empty. The only empty dorms were in the Moody Towers that were built in the 1970's. Last I heard virtually all the dorms are full this year, even the Moody Towers.

The reason nobody bothers to read your crap is because its littered with falsehoods, legit links that are twisted to mean something different than they state, all served with a thick gravy of misleading axe grinding conclusions (not to mention the consistently racist undertone).

(01-30-2017 09:19 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  yea I mean how childish to actually post graduation rates directly from the THECB instead of making stupid claims about 40% 6 year graduation rates

Get a better source than the THECB, which inflates statistics by removing transfer-outs and adding transfer-ins

https://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/18/...ate-billb/
UTSA's six-year graduation rate is about 27 percent, according to federal data, which calculates graduation rates based on the number of full-time students who graduate from the institution in which they first enrolled. But according to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which counts students who have transferred to another institution in the state as part of a school's graduation rate, the six-year rate for UTSA is 49 percent.

If people haven't figured it out yet todge is a racist. Its one of the reasons he doesn't like UH, because its in a predominately minority area.

I just pictured him as Dwight Schrute from The Office.

(01-31-2017 04:05 PM)Agust Wrote:  I just pictured him as Dwight Schrute from The Office.

I actually found his facebook. His profile pic is him shirtless wearing a bra.

Yikes !

(01-31-2017 12:03 PM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(01-31-2017 11:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  good night get a clue....really you are attempting to say an institution of higher education is not a university.....you have an IQ of 2

I'm questioning your apparent assertion that the term "institution of higher education" is limited solely to 4 year universities. I see no basis for that claim.

(01-31-2017 11:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  and just because in the past the legislature may have made a line item to fund something that does not change what I have pointed out in the constitution

Texas Constitution:

"Pursuant to a two-thirds vote of the membership of each house of the legislature, institutions of higher education may be created at a later date as a part of The University of Texas System or The Texas A&M University System by general law, and, when created, such an institution shall be entitled to participate in the funding provided by this section for the system in which it is created."

Texas State Historical Association

"In 1973 the Texas legislature authorized the Texas Marine Science Institute as a part of the University of Texas at Austin."

That's not a line item appropriation. That clearly indicates that the legislature had to sign off in order for the MSI to become an official part of UT-Austin.

(01-31-2017 11:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  besides the entire reason the Port Aransas facility was brought up by me was not to show that Ut could or could not build something without state approval (they can it has been shown), but to show that UT Austin has degree and course offering facilities outside of Austin...

...and they are under the control of Austin...as the Houston campus will be as well

Section b allows UT to acquire land, but only after the provisions of Section c have been satisfied. Once said authorization has been received UT is free to acquire land as they see fit.

they do not need to satisfy what you claim as long as the location in Houston is under the administration of Austin as it will be

so what you are saying they need to do is not in fact needed

they will administer the Houston location just like they do Port Aransas and just like they do with EMBA programs

or just like many universities in other places do with a medical school away from the main campus

or like AU and ASU do with several locations or like some of the Florida schools do with 2 or 3 locations in different cities under a single administration or like A&M and Galveston or A&M and their state wide health science centers

but the UT facility will be much more focused on research and on some

(01-31-2017 02:32 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(01-30-2017 09:19 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  yea I mean how childish to actually post graduation rates directly from the THECB instead of making stupid claims about 40% 6 year graduation rates

Get a better source than the THECB, which inflates statistics by removing transfer-outs and adding transfer-ins

https://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/18/...ate-billb/
UTSA's six-year graduation rate is about 27 percent, according to federal data, which calculates graduation rates based on the number of full-time students who graduate from the institution in which they first enrolled. But according to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which counts students who have transferred to another institution in the state as part of a school's graduation rate, the six-year rate for UTSA is 49 percent.

why would an online news paper be a better source than the state organization that is charged with collecting higher ed data?

and that number you are using does not take into account the fact that UTSA was a major part of the UT CAP program so they have an inflated number of students transferring to Austin to finish a degree

and it is still laughable for dem coogs doh to call any school out for graduation rats when the year 2015 was the first time ever their graduation rates "same" IE graduating from the same school they started broke 50%

and the point is to get people degrees so the fact that people that start at UTSA end up with a degree 6 years later from any school at near the same rate as dem coogs doh is relevant

especially when there are no other 4 year public schools to transfer into in San Antonio other than the A&M campus with limited degrees and it would take a dedicated student to leave UTSA and move to another city and still finish in 6 years unless of course that student was part of a CAP like program

then there is the fact that the UH system still has two of their system schools with some of the worst graduation rates in the state

so they have no business calling any other university or system out for anything graduation rate related

even more laughable trying to call another school out for ACADEMIC spending

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/03/...athletics/

(01-31-2017 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  600+ "new" dorms empty? Another straight up fabrication and hyperbole from the king of BS. No "new" dorms were empty. The only empty dorms were in the Moody Towers that were built in the 1970's. Last I heard virtually all the dorms are full this year, even the Moody Towers.

The reason nobody bothers to read your crap is because its littered with falsehoods, legit links that are twisted to mean something different than they state, all served with a thick gravy of misleading axe grinding conclusions (not to mention the consistently racist undertone).

in 2013 there were 8008 available beds on campus and 6256 were filled that leaves 1,752 empty beds

Moody Towers only holds 1,100 students

so 1,752 - 1,100 = 652 dorm rooms empty and that is if 100% of a low cost 1,100 person dorm is empty

in that year 6,495 of the available beds were university owned and 4,782 of those were filled so 1,713 university owned beds were empty and 1,713 - 1,100 = 613 university owned dorm beds that were empty even after you pretend as though it is acceptable to have an entire 1,100 dorm empty

in 2014 there were 6495 university owned beds with 5582 filled so 913 university owned beds were empty and we are suppose to pretend all of those were in a dorm that holds 1,100 and we are suppose to pretend that "working mans university" crying about the academic spending of another university in another system is making wise financial decisions for their students and their university by supposedly leaving an 1,100 person low cost dorm with under 200 students living in it

in 2015 university owned beds 6495 with 5894 filled so 601 university owned beds empty

also private 1513 with 1489 empty so only 24 empty

so there were in fact 600 new dorm rooms empty

and you are pretending like somehow it shows responsible financial management of a university for the university and students to have 625 empty door rooms on campus even if we pretend that means an 1,100 room dorm is over half empty

not to mention the fact that over a 3 year period over 3,251 have sat empty on the campus

if you pretend those were all in the lowest cost options (shown to not be realistic) and you sat $2,252 per bed per semester

$2,252 X 2 semesters per year X 3 years X 3,251 = $43,927,512 in lost revenue over that period and that is not including meal plans

but this is suppose to be acceptable because it is supposedly all the older less costly dorm rooms that are all empty

so we have a group of people complaining about the UT System spending money on a long term research campus while their university has watched $44 million in lost dorm revenues over a 3 year period fly out the window and they have spend $108 million on athletics from the academic side

again get your own financial picture in order and let UT worry about UT especially since they are a much better run university and system

(01-31-2017 06:43 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-31-2017 12:03 PM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(01-31-2017 11:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  good night get a clue....really you are attempting to say an institution of higher education is not a university.....you have an IQ of 2

I'm questioning your apparent assertion that the term "institution of higher education" is limited solely to 4 year universities. I see no basis for that claim.

(01-31-2017 11:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  and just because in the past the legislature may have made a line item to fund something that does not change what I have pointed out in the constitution

Texas Constitution:

"Pursuant to a two-thirds vote of the membership of each house of the legislature, institutions of higher education may be created at a later date as a part of The University of Texas System or The Texas A&M University System by general law, and, when created, such an institution shall be entitled to participate in the funding provided by this section for the system in which it is created."

Texas State Historical Association

"In 1973 the Texas legislature authorized the Texas Marine Science Institute as a part of the University of Texas at Austin."

That's not a line item appropriation. That clearly indicates that the legislature had to sign off in order for the MSI to become an official part of UT-Austin.

(01-31-2017 11:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  besides the entire reason the Port Aransas facility was brought up by me was not to show that Ut could or could not build something without state approval (they can it has been shown), but to show that UT Austin has degree and course offering facilities outside of Austin...

...and they are under the control of Austin...as the Houston campus will be as well

Section b allows UT to acquire land, but only after the provisions of Section c have been satisfied. Once said authorization has been received UT is free to acquire land as they see fit.

they do not need to satisfy what you claim as long as the location in Houston is under the administration of Austin as it will be

so what you are saying they need to do is not in fact needed

they will administer the Houston location just like they do Port Aransas and just like they do with EMBA programs

or just like many universities in other places do with a medical school away from the main campus

or like AU and ASU do with several locations or like some of the Florida schools do with 2 or 3 locations in different cities under a single administration or like A&M and Galveston or A&M and their state wide health science centers

but the UT facility will be much more focused on research and on some

(01-31-2017 02:32 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(01-30-2017 09:19 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  yea I mean how childish to actually post graduation rates directly from the THECB instead of making stupid claims about 40% 6 year graduation rates

Get a better source than the THECB, which inflates statistics by removing transfer-outs and adding transfer-ins

https://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/18/...ate-billb/
UTSA's six-year graduation rate is about 27 percent, according to federal data, which calculates graduation rates based on the number of full-time students who graduate from the institution in which they first enrolled. But according to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which counts students who have transferred to another institution in the state as part of a school's graduation rate, the six-year rate for UTSA is 49 percent.

why would an online news paper be a better source than the state organization that is charged with collecting higher ed data?

and that number you are using does not take into account the fact that UTSA was a major part of the UT CAP program so they have an inflated number of students transferring to Austin to finish a degree

and it is still laughable for dem coogs doh to call any school out for graduation rats when the year 2015 was the first time ever their graduation rates "same" IE graduating from the same school they started broke 50%

and the point is to get people degrees so the fact that people that start at UTSA end up with a degree 6 years later from any school at near the same rate as dem coogs doh is relevant

especially when there are no other 4 year public schools to transfer into in San Antonio other than the A&M campus with limited degrees and it would take a dedicated student to leave UTSA and move to another city and still finish in 6 years unless of course that student was part of a CAP like program

then there is the fact that the UH system still has two of their system schools with some of the worst graduation rates in the state

so they have no business calling any other university or system out for anything graduation rate related

even more laughable trying to call another school out for ACADEMIC spending

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/03/...athletics/

(01-31-2017 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  600+ "new" dorms empty? Another straight up fabrication and hyperbole from the king of BS. No "new" dorms were empty. The only empty dorms were in the Moody Towers that were built in the 1970's. Last I heard virtually all the dorms are full this year, even the Moody Towers.

The reason nobody bothers to read your crap is because its littered with falsehoods, legit links that are twisted to mean something different than they state, all served with a thick gravy of misleading axe grinding conclusions (not to mention the consistently racist undertone).

in 2013 there were 8008 available beds on campus and 6256 were filled that leaves 1,752 empty beds

Moody Towers only holds 1,100 students

so 1,752 - 1,100 = 652 dorm rooms empty and that is if 100% of a low cost 1,100 person dorm is empty

in that year 6,495 of the available beds were university owned and 4,782 of those were filled so 1,713 university owned beds were empty and 1,713 - 1,100 = 613 university owned dorm beds that were empty even after you pretend as though it is acceptable to have an entire 1,100 dorm empty

in 2014 there were 6495 university owned beds with 5582 filled so 913 university owned beds were empty and we are suppose to pretend all of those were in a dorm that holds 1,100 and we are suppose to pretend that "working mans university" crying about the academic spending of another university in another system is making wise financial decisions for their students and their university by supposedly leaving an 1,100 person low cost dorm with under 200 students living in it

in 2015 university owned beds 6495 with 5894 filled so 601 university owned beds empty

also private 1513 with 1489 empty so only 24 empty

so there were in fact 600 new dorm rooms empty

and you are pretending like somehow it shows responsible financial management of a university for the university and students to have 625 empty door rooms on campus even if we pretend that means an 1,100 room dorm is over half empty

not to mention the fact that over a 3 year period over 3,251 have sat empty on the campus

if you pretend those were all in the lowest cost options (shown to not be realistic) and you sat $2,252 per bed per semester

$2,252 X 2 semesters per year X 3 years X 3,251 = $43,927,512 in lost revenue over that period and that is not including meal plans

but this is suppose to be acceptable because it is supposedly all the older less costly dorm rooms that are all empty

so we have a group of people complaining about the UT System spending money on a long term research campus while their university has watched $44 million in lost dorm revenues over a 3 year period fly out the window and they have spend $108 million on athletics from the academic side

again get your own financial picture in order and let UT worry about UT especially since they are a much better run university and system

This is exactly what Im talking about. Some real facts with a completely fabricated conclusion.

Your own facts---

Moody houses 1100 beds.

in 2015 university owned beds 6495 with 5894 filled so 601 university owned beds empty

Your conclusion/claim----In 2015 600 NEW beds are empty.

You offered absolutely NO facts to support that conclusion. In fact, you're so stupid, anyone with common sense can see your own facts most likely indicate the exact opposite. The old beds are cheaper, but they are also the least appealing rooms with 70's conveniences and more students per bath (no individual baths like in the newer housing).

Then the faulty logic starts---poor financially strapped students would fill the cheaper Moody units first. Nope. The financially challenged students don't live on campus. They commute.

The vast majority of students living on campus have plenty of money--so when the high amenity dorms play out, they jump to privately operated dorms just off campus rather than settle for the subpar Moody dorms (your own numbers show that this is true, because the new just off campus private housing is essentially full) . In fact, that's why 2 MORE new privately owned just off campus student housing developments are being built and will come on line over the next year or two.

So, as ussual, Frantic Todd has a few real facts, laced with faulty logic, spun to reach an absolutely false conclusion along with a few taunts and some subtle racism. Then when called out on your lie---more stats, that actually don't support your 2015 claim---along with a bunch of facts from other years that have absolutely NOTHING to with your false and misleading 2015 claim. lol...in other words, exactly the type of wobbly crackpot answer you'd exepct from the typical Tech grad.

The reality---virtually all of those vacant beds were in Moody--which is why it needs to be renovated. From what Ive heard, UH is nearly full (even the vacancy rates Moody improved significantly this year). The real issue for UH student housing is demand for modern high end student housing is outstripping the university owned supply. The quad housing replacement project is going to help by adding 1000 new modern beds.

It's just fun to watch UT over play their hand and then have the city of Houston tell UT , hell no , now walk on home boy, and people like this todge fool will just have to eat crow

(02-01-2017 09:08 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  It's just fun to watch UT over play their hand and then have the city of Houston tell UT , hell no , now walk on home boy, and people like this todge fool will just have to eat crow

It's probably still going to happen. I haven't seen anything to indicate that UT wasn't going to build the Houston research center.

All I saw were some people complaining.

(02-01-2017 02:54 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 09:08 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  It's just fun to watch UT over play their hand and then have the city of Houston tell UT , hell no , now walk on home boy, and people like this todge fool will just have to eat crow

It's probably still going to happen. I haven't seen anything to indicate that UT wasn't going to build the Houston research center.

All I saw were some people complaining.

You have to put the "complaining" into context. Budget cuts are coming. There is a 5 billion dollar shortfall in the current 2-year budgeting session. In that environment---do you think a angry senate is going to look favorably on a new multi-billion dollar campus that doesn't even have a defined need and largely duplicates the function of another large state supported institution less than 5 miles away? The Lt Gov is actually the most powerful person in Texas St government. He and the gov sent UT a letter demanding to know why they cant keep tuition costs under control---and they want to spend billions on a new unnecessary campus?

UT-Houston is dead. It died the moment oil prices and tax revenue began falling.

(02-01-2017 03:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 02:54 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 09:08 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  It's just fun to watch UT over play their hand and then have the city of Houston tell UT , hell no , now walk on home boy, and people like this todge fool will just have to eat crow

It's probably still going to happen. I haven't seen anything to indicate that UT wasn't going to build the Houston research center.

All I saw were some people complaining.

You have to put the "complaining" into context. Budget cuts are coming. There is a 5 billion dollar shortfall in the current 2-year budgeting session. In that environment---do you think a angry senate is going to look favorably on a new multi-billion dollar campus that doesn't even have a defined need and largely duplicates the function of another large state supported institution less than 5 miles away? The Lt Gov is actually the most powerful person in Texas St government. He and the gov sent UT a letter demanding to know why they cant keep tuition costs under control---and they want to spend billions on a new unnecessary campus?

UT-Houston is dead. It died the moment oil prices and tax revenue began falling.

I'll wait to assume the Houston research campus is dead until I actually see someone say the research campus is dead.

Note that there's a difference between dead and delayed until the Texas economy has improved. The land has already been bought and paid for. It's not going to go bad if it sits for a while.

(01-31-2017 06:43 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-31-2017 02:32 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(01-30-2017 09:19 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  yea I mean how childish to actually post graduation rates directly from the THECB instead of making stupid claims about 40% 6 year graduation rates

Get a better source than the THECB, which inflates statistics by removing transfer-outs and adding transfer-ins

https://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/18/...ate-billb/
UTSA's six-year graduation rate is about 27 percent, according to federal data, which calculates graduation rates based on the number of full-time students who graduate from the institution in which they first enrolled. But according to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which counts students who have transferred to another institution in the state as part of a school's graduation rate, the six-year rate for UTSA is 49 percent.

why would an online news paper be a better source than the state organization that is charged with collecting higher ed data?

and that number you are using does not take into account the fact that UTSA was a major part of the UT CAP program so they have an inflated number of students transferring to Austin to finish a degree

and it is still laughable for dem coogs doh to call any school out for graduation rats when the year 2015 was the first time ever their graduation rates "same" IE graduating from the same school they started broke 50%

and the point is to get people degrees so the fact that people that start at UTSA end up with a degree 6 years later from any school at near the same rate as dem coogs doh is relevant

I guess I have to explain this to you in the way someone would have to explain this to a UTSA person.

The online newspaper is not the source of the number. The online newspaper is reporting a number sourced from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

And the CAP program tends to be just over 1,000 students each year - and only about a third who complete the requirements, a small portion of which come from UTSA. UTSA limits the number of students who can go through the CAP program. It wouldn't have a material impact on that awful number.

And to your last paragraph, the people who transfer out who get a degree anywhere should not be counted as a success for the school they left. If a kid is flailing with the lack of support at UTSA and transfers to Tarleton State and succeeds, that's Tarleton's success, not UTSA's.

(02-01-2017 08:26 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(01-31-2017 06:43 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-31-2017 02:32 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(01-30-2017 09:19 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  yea I mean how childish to actually post graduation rates directly from the THECB instead of making stupid claims about 40% 6 year graduation rates

Get a better source than the THECB, which inflates statistics by removing transfer-outs and adding transfer-ins

https://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/18/...ate-billb/
UTSA's six-year graduation rate is about 27 percent, according to federal data, which calculates graduation rates based on the number of full-time students who graduate from the institution in which they first enrolled. But according to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which counts students who have transferred to another institution in the state as part of a school's graduation rate, the six-year rate for UTSA is 49 percent.

why would an online news paper be a better source than the state organization that is charged with collecting higher ed data?

and that number you are using does not take into account the fact that UTSA was a major part of the UT CAP program so they have an inflated number of students transferring to Austin to finish a degree

and it is still laughable for dem coogs doh to call any school out for graduation rats when the year 2015 was the first time ever their graduation rates "same" IE graduating from the same school they started broke 50%

and the point is to get people degrees so the fact that people that start at UTSA end up with a degree 6 years later from any school at near the same rate as dem coogs doh is relevant

I guess I have to explain this to you in the way someone would have to explain this to a UTSA person.

The online newspaper is not the source of the number. The online newspaper is reporting a number sourced from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

And the CAP program tends to be just over 1,000 students each year - and only about a third who complete the requirements, a small portion of which come from UTSA. UTSA limits the number of students who can go through the CAP program. It wouldn't have a material impact on that awful number.

And to your last paragraph, the people who transfer out who get a degree anywhere should not be counted as a success for the school they left. If a kid is flailing with the lack of support at UTSA and transfers to Tarleton State and succeeds, that's Tarleton's success, not UTSA's.

and the THECB keeps numbers that are as accurate as anyone

and it would be extremely rare that someone failed out on one state university and moved and enrolled at a second state university and finished in 6 years especially between the effort to move and the lost transfer credits

plus the overall point is that dem coogs doh fans were just pulling graduation numbers out of their ass and making them much lower than they actually are without a clue about what they were talking about and dem coogs have no room to discuss the graduation rates of any other university or especially any other university system when you look at the rates coming out of their system and their main campus.....they can't even come close to Texas State much less the horribly run north Texas state and they are light years behind Texas Tech and UTD and they are right there with UTA

all the more laughable for a university that attempts to even discuss AAU membership or that makes up fake "tier 1"

also you are totally wrong about the CAP program and UTSA.....a very large MAJORITY of those students come through UTSA

http://www.egc3media.com/news/view.php/3...SA-for-now

so from 2001 to 2009 or 9 years there were 14,181 CAP students and UTSA was responsible for 9,804 of those students or on average about 1,000+ of them per year......so the "just 1,000 students" you are talking about in the CAP program with "a small portion from UTSA" is in REALITY as I have just showed actually about 1,000 students per year JUST FROM UTSA and that was over a 9 year period on average and 3,849 completed the program or an average or 427 students per year JUST FROM UTSA

this article also discusses CAP as well

https://plexuss.com/college/the-universi...an-antonio

As of 2012, UTSA has a 62% four year graduation rate for its students earning bachelors degrees. The Coordinated Admission Program (CAP), a program offered to some freshmen to transfer to the University of Texas at Austin after a year at UTSA, has a large adverse effect on this. The university has the most CAP students in the entire system, with only one-third of these undergraduates staying for their sophomore year. UTSA plans to phase out the CAP program in the next ten years to focus on students seeking degrees at the university.

so when one goes back and looks at the average freshman class size at UTSA from 2005 to 2009 4,474 4,775 4,837 4,849 4,883 one can see that 1,000+ students JUST FROM UTSA in the CAP program would be just under 25% of their freshman class

and if an average of 427 a year were completing the CAP program over that period that is 10% of their freshman class that is completing the CAP program and transferring to UT Austin

so when 10% of your freshman class successfully transfers to UT Austin that is going to severely lower your 6 year SAME SCHOOL graduation rates

so while you thought it was fun to "tell something to a UTSA person" (a university I have never attended) I thought it was equally as fun to show everyone that just because you pay a great deal more for a degree than many that does not mean you will come out from that university equipped to actually discuss something using facts or knowledge or intelligence, but often you will be equipped to more vehemently show your ass when afforded the opportunity to do so

because as I have just shown using proof and simple numbers is that about 22% of the freshman class from UTSA was admitted under the cap program in the recent past and that about 10% of that freshman class on average successfully transferred to UT Austin

oh yea and PS because it is clear that there are some real damn dunces participating in this thread

before anyone tries to say that "well 2009 is not relevant to today much less 2001"

do the maths morons......2009 + 6 = 2015 which would be the latest 6 year graduation rate of UTSA as reported by the THECB

facts, logic, intelligence, reality.....not the name on or the price of the degree really matters the most

(02-02-2017 12:24 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 08:26 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(01-31-2017 06:43 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-31-2017 02:32 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(01-30-2017 09:19 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  yea I mean how childish to actually post graduation rates directly from the THECB instead of making stupid claims about 40% 6 year graduation rates

Get a better source than the THECB, which inflates statistics by removing transfer-outs and adding transfer-ins

https://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/18/...ate-billb/
UTSA's six-year graduation rate is about 27 percent, according to federal data, which calculates graduation rates based on the number of full-time students who graduate from the institution in which they first enrolled. But according to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which counts students who have transferred to another institution in the state as part of a school's graduation rate, the six-year rate for UTSA is 49 percent.

why would an online news paper be a better source than the state organization that is charged with collecting higher ed data?

and that number you are using does not take into account the fact that UTSA was a major part of the UT CAP program so they have an inflated number of students transferring to Austin to finish a degree

and it is still laughable for dem coogs doh to call any school out for graduation rats when the year 2015 was the first time ever their graduation rates "same" IE graduating from the same school they started broke 50%

and the point is to get people degrees so the fact that people that start at UTSA end up with a degree 6 years later from any school at near the same rate as dem coogs doh is relevant

I guess I have to explain this to you in the way someone would have to explain this to a UTSA person.

The online newspaper is not the source of the number. The online newspaper is reporting a number sourced from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

And the CAP program tends to be just over 1,000 students each year - and only about a third who complete the requirements, a small portion of which come from UTSA. UTSA limits the number of students who can go through the CAP program. It wouldn't have a material impact on that awful number.

And to your last paragraph, the people who transfer out who get a degree anywhere should not be counted as a success for the school they left. If a kid is flailing with the lack of support at UTSA and transfers to Tarleton State and succeeds, that's Tarleton's success, not UTSA's.

and the THECB keeps numbers that are as accurate as anyone

and it would be extremely rare that someone failed out on one state university and moved and enrolled at a second state university and finished in 6 years especially between the effort to move and the lost transfer credits

plus the overall point is that dem coogs doh fans were just pulling graduation numbers out of their ass and making them much lower than they actually are without a clue about what they were talking about and dem coogs have no room to discuss the graduation rates of any other university or especially any other university system when you look at the rates coming out of their system and their main campus.....they can't even come close to Texas State much less the horribly run north Texas state and they are light years behind Texas Tech and UTD and they are right there with UTA

all the more laughable for a university that attempts to even discuss AAU membership or that makes up fake "tier 1"

also you are totally wrong about the CAP program and UTSA.....a very large MAJORITY of those students come through UTSA

http://www.egc3media.com/news/view.php/3...SA-for-now

so from 2001 to 2009 or 9 years there were 14,181 CAP students and UTSA was responsible for 9,804 of those students or on average about 1,000+ of them per year......so the "just 1,000 students" you are talking about in the CAP program with "a small portion from UTSA" is in REALITY as I have just showed actually about 1,000 students per year JUST FROM UTSA and that was over a 9 year period on average and 3,849 completed the program or an average or 427 students per year JUST FROM UTSA

this article also discusses CAP as well

https://plexuss.com/college/the-universi...an-antonio

As of 2012, UTSA has a 62% four year graduation rate for its students earning bachelors degrees. The Coordinated Admission Program (CAP), a program offered to some freshmen to transfer to the University of Texas at Austin after a year at UTSA, has a large adverse effect on this. The university has the most CAP students in the entire system, with only one-third of these undergraduates staying for their sophomore year. UTSA plans to phase out the CAP program in the next ten years to focus on students seeking degrees at the university.

so when one goes back and looks at the average freshman class size at UTSA from 2005 to 2009 4,474 4,775 4,837 4,849 4,883 one can see that 1,000+ students JUST FROM UTSA in the CAP program would be just under 25% of their freshman class

and if an average of 427 a year were completing the CAP program over that period that is 10% of their freshman class that is completing the CAP program and transferring to UT Austin

so when 10% of your freshman class successfully transfers to UT Austin that is going to severely lower your 6 year SAME SCHOOL graduation rates

so while you thought it was fun to "tell something to a UTSA person" (a university I have never attended) I thought it was equally as fun to show everyone that just because you pay a great deal more for a degree than many that does not mean you will come out from that university equipped to actually discuss something using facts or knowledge or intelligence, but often you will be equipped to more vehemently show your ass when afforded the opportunity to do so

because as I have just shown using proof and simple numbers is that about 22% of the freshman class from UTSA was admitted under the cap program in the recent past and that about 10% of that freshman class on average successfully transferred to UT Austin

oh yea and PS because it is clear that there are some real damn dunces participating in this thread

before anyone tries to say that "well 2009 is not relevant to today much less 2001"

do the maths morons......2009 + 6 = 2015 which would be the latest 6 year graduation rate of UTSA as reported by the THECB

facts, logic, intelligence, reality.....not the name on or the price of the degree really matters the most

TLDR