Jump to content

UT Being Ruined?


TahoeHorn

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

There is the matter of inflation.  And the fact that technology (which costs money) has changed a bit since 1985).

Hasn’t the cost of tech dropped?  A lot of shit that was expensive in 85 can be bought cheap now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like to see what percentage of campus infrastructure & hiring in the 1980's was funded by oil and what was funded by general revenue, compared to now.  (They could be identical for all I know.  Is it all PUF funds?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Hasn’t the cost of tech dropped?  A lot of shit that was expensive in 85 can be bought cheap now. 

Not textbooks.  Holy smokes, every one of them seems to be $200 or higher now (and I don't think the digital copies are any cheaper).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Sounds like we need to increase state funding and take a chainsaw to administrative costs. Like Gordon Gekko to Teldar Paper. We’ve got 47 Vice Presidents 

Ok.  Maybe.  I don't know.  I can't tell from just the title what a "vice president" does.  Plenty of companies now give everybody above the janitor the title "vice president."  Without being very knowledgeable about the corporate structure and job functions, I can't really tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Hasn’t the cost of tech dropped?  A lot of shit that was expensive in 85 can be bought cheap now. 

Yes, but the new cutting edge shit is still expensive. Except TI calculators somehow... Those fuckers are still crazy expensive for being less capable than an arduino

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Come on.  

47% of $503M = $236M

12% of $2,975M = $357M

There's some interesting data embedded in those numbers.

Budget went from $503 million to $2.975 billion -- a nearly 600% increase in budget over 33 years.  I am quite confident that the CPI and inflation don't reflect that all costs have increased 600% in the past 33 years.  So, cost inflation is certainly a problem.

Total tuition dollars paid in went from around $25 million to around $620 million - a nearly 2,500% increase.  In other words, tuition, if it went up PROPORTIONATELY with the budget, would have made up around $150 million of the current budget (a 600% increase).  Instead....it's over QUADRUPLE that. 

Meanwhile, state funding (in absolute dollars, which is what we've been talking here) has only gone up 50%.

I found an inflation calculator that shows CPI inflation from 1985 to 2018 totals 237% (that is, what cost $1 in 1985 costs $2.37 today).

SO -- budget has outpaced inflation by a factor of around 2.5; tuition increase has outpaced inflation by a factor of around 10; and state funding contribution has lagged BEHIND inflation by a factor of nearly 5.

If all had grown by the inflation rate, we should have:

Budget: $1,192 billion

Tuition contribution: $59.25 million

State funding: $559 million

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I guarantee you UT's IT budget is 100x what it was in 1985.

Shouldn’t all that IT lead to a lot more efficiencies with staff?  Baker Botts spends a lot more on IT than they did in 1985. And a lot less on secretaries, typing and copies.  Instead of one secretary per lawyer, it is 5 lawyers sharing one secretary. 

And filing is much much cheaper.  Instead of clerks and runners, a paralegal can do it in 40 seconds with a pdf.

Edited by Johnny Sack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

 

This.

Seriously, you're just talking out your ass, and you are embarrassing yourself.

How about you look at this employee:

I bolded the departments she's associated with.  How much of her pay is attributable to each department?  How much of her pay is from "The Division of Diversity and Community Engagement," and how much is from the College of Education, and from the College of Liberal Arts?  Please, show your work.

I went through the downloaded file.  Her salary of $199, 209.01  is paid by "Division of Diversity and Community Engagement".  I will guess she keeps her prof title and may get some additional comp if she does anything for them. 

You lose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There's some interesting data embedded in those numbers.

Budget went from $503 million to $2.975 billion -- a nearly 600% increase in budget over 33 years.  I am quite confident that the CPI and inflation don't reflect that all costs have increased 600% in the past 33 years.  So, cost inflation is certainly a problem.

Total tuition dollars paid in went from around $25 million to around $620 million - a nearly 2,500% increase.  In other words, tuition, if it went up PROPORTIONATELY with the budget, would have made up around $150 million of the current budget (a 600% increase).  Instead....it's over QUADRUPLE that. 

Meanwhile, state funding (in absolute dollars, which is what we've been talking here) has only gone up 50%.

I found an inflation calculator that shows CPI inflation from 1985 to 2018 totals 237% (that is, what cost $1 in 1985 costs $2.37 today).

SO -- budget has outpaced inflation by a factor of around 2.5; tuition increase has outpaced inflation by a factor of around 10; and state funding contribution has lagged BEHIND inflation by a factor of nearly 5.

If all had grown by the inflation rate, we should have:

Budget: $1,192 billion

Tuition contribution: $59.25 million

State funding: $559 million

 

Here's the growth rates in order:

Tuition (revenue): 9.9%

Donations: 9.2%

Budget: 5.37%

AUF: 4.81%

Inflation: 2.6%

State funds: 1.2%

Enrollment grew by 0.2%

Edited by JBJ
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Shouldn’t all that IT lead to a lot more efficiencies with staff?  Baker Botts spends a lot more on IT than they did in 1985. And a lot less on secretaries, typing and copies.  Instead of one secretary per lawyer, it is 5 lawyers sharing one secretary. 

I used to work for UT ITS. It's as efficient as any other state run agency. It's rife with politics and idiots who are in charge who don't know an IP address from their asshole. Where there's politics and career advancement at stake, you can be sure there's a whole lotta budget fuckery to "protect their people" or to take scalps to justify some pie in the sky project that was sold to them over drinks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I went through the downloaded file.  Her salary of $199, 209.01  is paid by "Division of Diversity and Community Engagement".  I will guess she keeps her prof title and may get some additional comp if she does anything for them. 

You lose. 

You got me -- I picked the wrong member of leadership.  :)

Do the same exercise with Breithaupt, Chavez, or Martinez.  See which division they are listed under.

My hunch (and I admit to not having the data behind it) is that in many cases, when a person is affiliated with numerous departments, the science of which department their pay is allocated to is not a science at all.  The point remains that at least as to the leadership positions we can see, these folks are not performing solely "diversity" functions (and in several cases, it's apparent that their position is connected to the SECOND part of the division's title -- "and Community Engagement").  In short, we're back where we started.  How many dollars does UT allocate to DIVERSITY, and JUST diversity?

 

By the way, the threadjack here discussing university costs and funding is really interesting, and I like that posters from multiple spots on the political spectrum are having an adult conversation about it.  It's interesting and important.  So, fuck the original topic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Here's the growth rates in order:

Tuition (revenue): 9.9%

Donations: 9.2%

Budget: 5.37%

AUF: 4.81%

Inflation: 2.6%

State funds: 1.2%

Growth rate of students and their families being turbofucked: 

Seriously, those are great comparative numbers.  Hell, if tuition had risen just at the same rate as the budget, it would be just over half of its current cost.  That's HUGE.

Edited by Brisketexan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Growth rate of students and their families being turbofucked: 

 

The reality is that UT is still one of - if not the most - discount universities in terms of cost vs quality.

My degree is more valued in my industry than its equivalent from Stanford or MIT and it's less than half the cost.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JBJ said:

The reality is that UT is still one of - if not the most - discount universities in terms of cost vs quality.

My degree is more valued in my industry than its equivalent from Stanford or MIT and it's less than half the cost.

Oh, we're looking at colleges now -- believe me, I WISH my daughter would consider UT.

"Cheapest overpriced option" is still the CHEAPEST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

You got me -- I picked the wrong member of leadership.  :)

Do the same exercise with Breithaupt, Chavez, or Martinez.  See which division they are listed under.

My hunch (and I admit to not having the data behind it) is that in many cases, when a person is affiliated with numerous departments, the science of which department their pay is allocated to is not a science at all.  The point remains that at least as to the leadership positions we can see, these folks are not performing solely "diversity" functions (and in several cases, it's apparent that their position is connected to the SECOND part of the division's title -- "and Community Engagement").  In short, we're back where we started.  How many dollars does UT allocate to DIVERSITY, and JUST diversity?

 

By the way, the threadjack here discussing university costs and funding is really interesting, and I like that posters from multiple spots on the political spectrum are having an adult conversation about it.  It's interesting and important.  So, fuck the original topic.

I don't doubt that there are a few people (Johnny Sack said three) of the 94 who are part-time and get paid out of another department.  If the English Department carries them I'll let it pass.  My quarrel is with the department budget.  Cut it to about $200K from, say, $12 million (berkelet's is $20 million and 150 people), and I'll be happy.  If English profs want a committee to have diversity ideas I'm happy.

 

NOW, do your exercise for staff people.  I think you found Johnny's three part-timers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I don't doubt that there are a few people (Johnny Sack said three) of the 94 who are part-time and get paid out of another department.  If the English Department carries them I'll let it pass.  My quarrel is with the department budget.  Cut it to about $200K from, say, $12 million (berkelet's is $20 million and 150 people), and I'll be happy.  If English profs want a committee to have diversity ideas I'm happy.

 

NOW, do your exercise for staff people.  I think you found Johnny's three part-timers.

And you do YOUR exercise to breakdown that budget between DIVERSITY activities and COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT purposes.  Because you're still talking about the entire department budget, which by the org chart clearly includes many functions that have nothing to do with diversity programs.

This is YOUR opinion, and YOUR argument, so YOUR burden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I don't doubt that there are a few people (Johnny Sack said three) of the 94 who are part-time and get paid out of another department.  If the English Department carries them I'll let it pass.  My quarrel is with the department budget.  Cut it to about $200K from, say, $12 million (berkelet's is $20 million and 150 people), and I'll be happy.  If English profs want a committee to have diversity ideas I'm happy.

 

NOW, do your exercise for staff people.  I think you found Johnny's three part-timers.

You aren't going to be happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

It’s probably a separate discussion, but when you make it a culturally ingrained idea that college is absolutely vital and the degree will more than pay for the giant up front costs over time, AND you set up a student loan system that allows colleges to charge and collect whatever they want regardless of market factors, then you’re going to get a massive tuition price bubble.

It is like healthcare costs.  Nothing is really going to address the problem as long as the industry gets to live in voodoo economics land where there are enough intermediaries muddying the waters that prices end up completely divorced from what people actually pay themselves and can afford.

Agreed.  IF you want to go political, this is one of those subjects (free-flowing mortgage money is another) where traditional left-of-center policies have unintended consequences.

We want more people to be able to attend college---> so open up the money supply to those people ----> increased money supply leads to price inflation.

(We want more people to be able to buy a house---> so open up the money supply to those people ----> increased money supply leads to price inflation.)

Of course, right-of-center policies (reduce state funding for education) have consequences, which I think are INTENDED.  Plenty of blame to go around.

Universities are drivers of local economies (educated workforce = more income dollars for the region).  GOOD policy would be to adequately fund these economic engines.  And GOOD policy would be to have SOME assistance/loan dollars available, but to have a reasonable cap on them so as to prevent your loan programs from being drivers of tuition inflation.

There are some big policy lessons in there.  But nobody is learning shit from them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Cost is going up tremendously, the payoff is not.

Nope, it's not.....but it's STILL better than the alternative, generally speaking.

If you want to have a strong income potential, you NEED a degree (yes, notwithstanding our discussion that a smart electrician can build a helluva business, for MOST folks, this is the way it is).  And if you NEED something....well, you're willing to pay quite a bit for it, aren't you?  Because the consequences of NOT having that thing you need....well, the career arc for a Chili's manager isn't very strong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that of the 11,645 administrative staff members and over 3000 faculty members, Tahoe focuses on the few involved in diversity programs, purportedly as evidence of bloated bureaucracy.  Wonder why he chose those positions as being unnecessary.  It's a mystery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Interesting that of the 11,645 administrative staff members and over 3000 faculty members, Tahoe focuses on the few involved in diversity programs, purportedly as evidence of bloated bureaucracy.  Wonder why he chose those positions as being unnecessary.  It's a mystery.

A durned mystery, that's what it is.

d2ee506728c9115e41646ebdaf5cb484--histor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Interesting that of the 11,645 administrative staff members and over 3000 faculty members, Tahoe focuses on the few involved in diversity programs, purportedly as evidence of bloated bureaucracy.  Wonder why he chose those positions as being unnecessary.  It's a mystery.

Wait a minute. Are those numbers right - nearly four times as many admin staff as faculty? If so, that seems to be the problem, in a nutshell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Cost is going up tremendously, the payoff is not.

With the possible exception of Engineering, a sliver of business, and maybe a smattering of pre-med or pre-Law (what's the difference?),  I would encourage kids NOT to go to college, unless they simply are going for what it was always FIRST and FOREMOST, a place to learn a diversity of stuff, not to get a job.  Although pragmatically "getting a job degree" is what a large (if not the majority) of college kids are doing, college is supposed to be the 4 years when you learn other shit and learn stuff that's not in your comfort zone and how to entertain and process new views/knowledge.

I agree that the "payoff" isn't what it was, but sometimes what the "payoff" is perceived as is simply misguided.  I went to 1) learn about the world, and 2) git good at sumpin''.  On both of those I felt I succeeded fabulously, even I didn't come out making six figs.

UT has upped their cred by leaps and bounds, ever since ol' Steve Weinberg came here to bump up the Physics Department.  I would expect a diversity office, a left-hand-hurts office, just about any fucking office in existence, as UT is a true "University", a big, big school representing a big, big world.  And as I said above, none of that shit matters to me, I never think/thought about it, neither does my kid, but it does good, so what do I care if they have it?  They're supposed to.  They really help kids and for the most part it affects very, very few and costs very, very little in relation to the overall budget outlay.

Edited by phdhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

College May Not Be Worth It Anymore

Some info in here related to this thread, both the OP and the hijack.

1.       College may not be worth it for folks starting off poor. They don’t get as much of a salary bump as those starting off middle or upper class, even with the same degree, and with costs going up they may never make back the expense. It’s a class thing.

2.       It’s also a race thing. Minorities make less than whites even with a comparable college degree.

3.       A college degree is a barrier to entry to many high paying jobs - many jobs whose duties don’t require a college degree nevertheless require one to be hired.

4.       Minorities and poors are less likely to be admitted to elite universities, which bestow a greater salary bump than non-elites. And they're less likely to graduate if they do get in.

 

Some takeaways: if you want to close the income gap between poors, which overlaps heavily with the category of minorities, and middle-to-upper classes, then a diversity program that recruits minorities into elite universities and helps them succeed there would seem to be a natural step. You can quibble about how much to spend on such a program, but if one of your goals is to reduce class- and race-based inequality, then if you want to cut it down to essentially nothing, as Tahoe seems to want to do, then you’ll have to figure out another way to get there.

 

Edited by Bat Guano
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

Wait a minute. Are those numbers right - nearly four times as many admin staff as faculty? If so, that seems to be the problem, in a nutshell.

Yes but specifically the hundred members of the diversity department are the exact problem and it's ruining the university and possibly the entire world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

My argument is that we can do without the massive diversity and inclusion bureaucracy - that it's hurting the university. That's the only argumenty I'm making.

You're certainly welcome to have that viewpoint, but that piece of shit article does nothing to advance your case. In fact, quite the opposite.

That article is easily digestible for non-thinkers because it's full of loaded vocabulary, and scant on facts. Hits all the right buttons to rile up emotional dummies, but provides nothing but junk food for anyone who wants to do some critical thinking. Hell, even the introduction leads me to think the writer has no connection to, or history with, the State or University of Texas. I'm amazed to see at the bottom that he's writing from Austin, Texas...based on his ignorance of history, I'm assuming he just moved there last week. Someone might want to inform him that our tradition of "defending beliefs and institutions" did not BEGIN with the Alamo. For fuck's sake.

Anyone who has stepped foot on the campus over the past, oh, 50 years would know that Austin/UT has skewed left for quite some time, and that this is not some unsettling new development. As I recall, you may hail from outside of the state, if so you get a pass for not having any idea about our history or culture.

The only numbers thrown around are a couple of references to salary (To suggest that they're overpaid? What are other schools paying similar positions? I have no idea, and the author is too lazy to provide any additional context or detail), and the fact that the diversity department has "approaching 100 employees". I suppose the author wants me to throw my hands up in disgust that 100 employees work in the diversity department, because that's what Outrage Nation does. Is 100 employees is a lot? It sounds like a lot. But is it more than other similar organizations? What does that department do? The author doesn't bother to give any information, either because he didn't care to look it up...or because he doesn't want you to do anything but to share his outrage. Hint: You can't think and be outraged at the same time. Try it. You can't.

Let's say that the diversity and community engagement department has a budget of $50 MILLION DOLLARS. I'm 99.99% certain that such a number is a comically vast exaggeration, but for argument's sake let's say that it does. Do you know what that $50 MILLION DOLLARS (OMG!!!!1111) represents as a percentage of the overall UT system annual operating expenses? I do. You can too, if you bother to spend 2 minutes on Google. Hint: It's 0.25%. That's one quarter of one percent. At this point, this is where you're supposed to clutch your pearls and tell me dreamy fantasy tales about $50 MILLION DOLLARS could be spent on building the next mission to Mars or whatever (FIRE UP THE OUTRAGE MACHINE!!).... And that's when I say that you're wasting time talking about fucking rounding errors.

Look, I'm always up for some fair reasoned criticism of frivolous spending, but the vitriol towards this stuff is unsettling. Too often these articles toss out standalone numbers and lean entirely on the cliché of the reckless spending liberal. Only in extremely rare instances have any of them done any additional research to understand where the supposedly inflated spend numbers fit within the context of overall budget numbers. When you ask them to provide larger context, usually all they can do is fall back on lazy generalities or pure personal opinion. I bet you can't even tell me what this department does. It's not because the answer is "nothing", it's because you're too lazy to look. Hope you don't like high school sports, for example.

If you're as much of an open minded thinker as you like to tell us that you are, then you'd look some information up for yourself before you vomit shitty links on here and claim that it's worth anyone's time.

If this was TLDR for you, then let me sum it up. Stay the fuck out of our state's business.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Yes but specifically the hundred members of the diversity department are the exact problem and it's ruining the university and possibly the entire world.

Yeah, I'm sure that less-than-1-percent of the admin is the real problem.

Edited by Bat Guano
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of it may also be constant and expensive renovation that has been needed to attract students since the late 90s.  Providing a great education isn't enough even if it was enough prior to then.  Look at Gregory Gym.  It was a dank building that served its purpose adequately for decades without much change.  It was remodeled as practically a luxury resort in 1997.  Compare that with the decent, but more utilitarian, Rec Center that was built only 7 years before in 1990.  There has also been an overall building boom since the late 90s in spite of the fact that the student body is roughly the same size.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Part of it may also be constant and expensive renovation that has been needed to attract students since the late 90s.  Providing a great education isn't enough even if it was enough prior to then.  Look at Gregory Gym.  It was a dank building that served its purpose adequately for decades without much change.  It was remodeled as practically a luxury resort in 1997.  Compare that with the decent, but more utilitarian, Rec Center that was built only 7 years before in 1990.  There has also been an overall building boom since the late 90s in spite of the fact that the student body is roughly the same size.

The Speedway pedestrian mall is pretty great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

College May Not Be Worth It Anymore

Some info in here related to this thread, both the OP and the hijack.

1.       College may not be worth it for folks starting off poor. They don’t get as much of a salary bump as those starting off middle or upper class, even with the same degree, and with costs going up they may never make back the expense. It’s a class thing.

2.       It’s also a race thing. Minorities make less than whites even with a comparable college degree.

3.       A college degree is a barrier to entry to many high paying jobs - many jobs whose duties don’t require a college degree nevertheless require one to be hired.

4.       Minorities and poors are less likely to be admitted to elite universities, which bestow a greater salary bump than non-elites. And they're less likely to graduate if they do get in.

 

Some takeaways: if you want to close the income gap between poors, which overlaps heavily with the category of minorities, and middle-to-upper classes, then a diversity program that recruits minorities into elite universities and helps them succeed there would seem to be a natural step. You can quibble about how much to spend on such a program, but if one of your goals is to reduce class- and race-based inequality, then if you want to cut it down to essentially nothing, as Tahoe seems to want to do, then you’ll have to figure out another way to get there.

 

Well, my college strategy for students coming from a poor background is this:

1: do well in high school, and apply to truly ELITE universities.  They will often throw big chunks of cash at poor and minority students.  A degree from a flagship university or elite private university has added value, so if you can get it at a steep discount, get it.

2: if that option is not available or you just don't qualify, then get the CHEAPEST decent degree that you can.  Ideally, START by loading up on credits at a decent community college, which are WAY cheap.  Nobody cares if you did your first two years of credit at ACC.  Yes, you have to make sure they qualify, are transferable to the university you want to get a degree from, etc.  So do the homework, and take the right courses.

Then, attend a cheaper in-state school.  Think SFA, Sam Houston, other system schools (UT Dallas, Arlington, San Antonio, etc.).  Do some smart shopping for your degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's been a bit of an arms race in terms of college facilities. I'm not sure how much that drives the cost, but it seems like it's now part of the cost of doing business. The wisdom is that if you want the top kids, you need to compete in every way.

Probably the best way to cut costs for families has been the rise of dual enrollment. I'm not sure about Texas anymore, but in my state, it's free for the student. Motivated kids are able to graduate high school with an associate's degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Shouldn’t all that IT lead to a lot more efficiencies with staff?  Baker Botts spends a lot more on IT than they did in 1985. And a lot less on secretaries, typing and copies.  Instead of one secretary per lawyer, it is 5 lawyers sharing one secretary. 

And filing is much much cheaper.  Instead of clerks and runners, a paralegal can do it in 40 seconds with a pdf.

People confuse this issue all the time. Yes, you expect technology to provide efficiencies. But, those efficiencies generally result in accomplishing MORE work in the same time, not the SAME work in less time. Thus, depending on the amount of additional work that technology allows you to do, absolute costs may actually go up as a result of technology even as efficiency is also increased. 

Applied to the University, you have to consider that all that IT is not only used to do the same work the University did previously, but also drives new abilities and services that both students and faculty expect to have. And that stuff costs money, a lot of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, my college strategy for students coming from a poor background is this:

1: do well in high school, and apply to truly ELITE universities.  They will often throw big chunks of cash at poor and minority students.  A degree from a flagship university or elite private university has added value, so if you can get it at a steep discount, get it.

2: if that option is not available or you just don't qualify, then get the CHEAPEST decent degree that you can.  Ideally, START by loading up on credits at a decent community college, which are WAY cheap.  Nobody cares if you did your first two years of credit at ACC.  Yes, you have to make sure they qualify, are transferable to the university you want to get a degree from, etc.  So do the homework, and take the right courses.

Then, attend a cheaper in-state school.  Think SFA, Sam Houston, other system schools (UT Dallas, Arlington, San Antonio, etc.).  Do some smart shopping for your degree.

Curious:  are other UT system schools cheaper? 

I believe that the UC system (and Cal State system) all have the same tuition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Curious:  are other UT system schools cheaper? 

I believe that the UC system (and Cal State system) all have the same tuition. 

I think they're about the same.  But still a good deal, all things considered.  If you spend a couple of years getting CC credits, and earning some money to set aside for bigger-dollar tuition, you can get out of college with a minimal debt load.

SFA, Sam Houston, etc., are slightly cheaper (about $8-9k a year, I think).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I think they're about the same.  But still a good deal, all things considered.  If you spend a couple of years getting CC credits, and earning some money to set aside for bigger-dollar tuition, you can get out of college with a minimal debt load.

SFA, Sam Houston, etc., are slightly cheaper (about $8-9k a year, I think).

The cost of living is a lot cheaper compared to Austin 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TornACL said:

You're certainly welcome to have that viewpoint, but that piece of shit article does nothing to advance your case. In fact, quite the opposite.

...

As always, the articles I post are vehicles for introducing an issue.  They are rarely my opinion, although usually they are roughly in the vein of what my opinion is.

As always I'm not trying to conduct a trial serving as both an advocate and a juror.  I'm looking to discuss a topic.  As such I'm not concerned if the article presents my case poorly. It would be nice if it did but I'm sure that anyone who really cares can get my opinion.  And I'm well aware that many don't care what my opinion is.  And in fact want to portray it as something it isn't. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

As always, the articles I post are vehicles for introducing an issue.  They are rarely my opinion, although usually they are roughly in the vein of what my opinion is.

As always I'm not trying to conduct a trial serving as both an advocate and a juror.  I'm looking to discuss a topic.  As such I'm not concerned if the article presents my case poorly. It would be nice if it did but I'm sure that anyone who really cares can get my opinion.  And I'm well aware that many don't care what my opinion is.  And in fact want to portray it as something it isn't. 

 

 

That's a breathtakingly stupid and dumbass approach.

You don't take a shit in the punchbowl to prompt a conversation about the array of beverage choices at the party.  What you start the conversation with matters.

Edited by Brisketexan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's a breathtakingly stupid and dumbass approach.

You don't take a shit in the punchbowl to prompt a conversation about the array of beverage choices at the party.  What you start the conversation with matters.

For years I posted "intelligent" articles.  They got no response.  A panel on C-SPAN doesn't get the viewers that a rant by Sean Hannity does. 

 

About ten years ago I changed my methods.  I'd do the "intelligent" articles if it would get discussed. 

 

I'd rather get five pages of amusement that no response.

Edited by TahoeHorn
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The title of the thread asks if UT was being ruined. Not if too much bureaucracy was in place. Not if money could be spent more efficiently or in different places. But whether the university was being destroyed. By diversity programs.

Attempts to move the goalposts don't change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...