All of my comments relate to the questioning Powers got during his last BoR meeting, they have nothing to do with Perry other than he selected those BoR members (which is what the Governor does). Here is the Statesman article about it: Link
I didn't intend for this to become a pissing match between UT and A&M, either, but it just can't be helped when looking at the big picture. All of your reasoning seems to be a red herring to justify the witch hunt that is by all accounts being machinated by Perry. Is it not true that Perry has been criticized by Aggies for micromanaging when things weren't so rosy (think M. McKinney)? Why is what's good for the goose not good for the gander? I find it ironic that a chief criticism for a university president under tremendous budget constraints from supposedly conservative, austere regents is that the president didn't spend more money to unnecessarily bestow a title on someone to lead a department that is already doing its job well, and add another layer of bureaucracy. I also fail to see how the same budget constraints are ignored while A&M plans to drastically increase enrollment, while the pressure is on UT to reduce students. Yes, A&M has more land to grow, but does it have enough money to grow and ensure keeping the same level of academic integrity? I don't think so, mainly because I don't see state funding increasing any time soon, nor do I see the PUF taking up enough slack without dipping into the principal, which would be silly. Even sillier is wanting even more schools added to the PUF, and making that pie smaller. And what raises the red flag is when Perry is advocating for UT to add more schools from its system to the PUF (which requires a state constitutional amendment). Why isn't Mr. Perry pushing for A&M-Commerce, the second largest school in the system, to get PUF funds? That really makes me suspicious, and yes, that seems to be proof positive of, as you write, "Perry stopping him from achieving those goals that the BoR is holding him accountable to." When I read in the paper that Perry wanted to add more UT schools to the PUF, I nearly shat myself. Fishy, too, is the fact that the engineering school is held up as some excuse for the differing four-year graduation rates, albeit a relatively minor difference. UT's engineering school makes up 15 percent of its total enrollment, while A&M's engineering comprises 20 percent; does 5 percent more compared to the whole pie really make the two institutions' overall rates incomparable? I don't think so. But really, this isn't meant to be a discussion of how the UT President is doing (he gets criticism that he deserves, and hasn't been perfect by any stretch), it's meant to voice concern at the Governor of Texas micromanaging The University of Texas, and you seem to be denying that is happening under some excuse that "Well, he appoints the regents, blah blah blah." Are you denying that Perry is trying to micromanage UT's athletics and academics, which is not his job? Or are you still going to hold on to the assertion that this is all on the regents?
There's a term politicians use: "The juice isn't worth the squeeze." That's why I think that Perry isn't involved in this, because what he would gain doesn't off-set what he would lose through this move. I think that Powers/Powers supporters are linking this to Perry in an attempt to protect Powers. So to answer your question: I think that its on the regents. And to get back to the meat of the issue: This isn't about A&M to the SEC. This isn't about disagreements between two schools, or two fanbases. This is about who is going to guide one of the two flagship universities in the state of Texas into the future. And its the flagship and system that gets more money, and educates more Texans, than any other system. Our future prosperity as a state may hinge on what A&M, UT, and Rice graduates create in the future. If you doubt that think about California, and where they would be if they didn't have all of the tax revenue from Silicon Valley. They invested in top notch schools, and graduates of those schools have repaid those investments many times over in tax revenues to the state. That is why I'm interested in what happens to Powers, and what the regents concerns with Powers are.
I just don't buy that Perry has some evil plan to destroy UT nor do I agree he is "micromanaging" it. Does he care about how Texas is run and what is going on there? Absolutely, that's part of his job just as it is at A&M and the rest of the Public schools in the State. He has very limited ability to "micromanage" anything though outside of appointing the BoR. He doesn't run the Higher Ed Committees in either House for instance. As I also said, I think Perry has made some bad moves for both A&M and Texas but also some good ones. McKinney was an absolute dumpster fire of a Chancellor for the A&M System and he was a hard core Perry guy. My point is less about Perry though and more about Powers. I just don't see what the great accomplishments Powers has achieved happen to be. Texas is pretty much where it was in 2006 when he took over and doesn't appear to be making rapid progress. Maybe I am missing something though. I'd like to hear more about what he has done though as opposed to how Perry is the bogeyman. It just seems that a school that has 2 and a half times the endowment of the next closest Public school in the US should be able to accomplish just about whatever it wants goal wise. I do favor all of the A&M System schools being added to the PUF. The PUF is growing at a rapid rate due to the price of oil and other rare minerals increasing as well as the increased extraction on PUF lands. I'd like to see Texas as a State increase the quality of education at all Universities so long as the 2 Flagships are protected. The PUF is the only funding source that is truly growing from a State funding perspective. As for the graduation stats. My point is A&M is showing some excellent progress in all areas and is continuing to move up the charts to compete with the elite Publics. The 4 year rate is going up about 1% per year and the 6 year rate is going up even faster. The school wants both to continue to climb but my point on the Engineering school is not only that A&M has a larger Engineering school than Texas but they plan to expand it in a big way over the coming years with some talk of taking it up to 25k students in the Engineering College. This was a recent quote from an AAS article:
Let me clarify. It wouldn't bother me one bit to see Bill Powers run off (his liberalism frankly makes my skin crawl, but such is academia), but I want this to be 100 percent on the regents, without question. And good grief, is it ever questionable. Again -- I am unsure that the strings are being pulled by the regents. I am unsure there is an appropriate level of insulation between the governor and the regents. Nothing in your previous missives has made me think otherwise, and you can type until your fingers turn blue, and it still won't. Sorry. Perry has been governor for more about 12 years now, which is plenty of time to consolidate a power base within the Legislature and various state agencies. I don't think that's something out-of-hand to suggest; any politician who doesn't seek power in all facets won't last long. To think otherwise is frankly naive. Call me a wild-eyed fool, but when I found out that one of the newest UT System regents holds an undergraduate degree from Texas A&M (Ernest Aliseda of McAllen), the old bells and whistles went off. Seriously, has there ever been a UT graduate who was a member of the A&M Board of Regents? I don't think Perry is even trying to hide it any longer. I think his power move is on the horizon, and that at least some regents are doing his bidding. Please note this following paragraph, as you keep trying to turn this into a UT vs. A&M thing (I'm guilty of that, too, I suppose): Are "they" doing it to benefit A&M/destroy The University of Texas? That, I am not so sure of, simply because Perry has tried to foist reforms on A&M, too. Am I wrong about that? I know Aggies get their egos stroked thinking that anyone affiliated with The University of Texas would be hollering "those GD Aggies are out to screw us," but I think it's even deeper than that, and the fact that some of them are Aggies is merely incidental. Much more of me screams "follow the money." Jeff Sandefer, who is behind all these college reforms pitched by Perry, is a University of Texas graduate, after all. Regent Alex Cranberg, a vociferous Powers detractor, is a UT grad, but is linked at the hip with Sandefer. The common denominator seems to be Perry, and it all stinks to high heaven. You disagree that Perry is directly involved, and that is fine. I hold a skeptical viewpoint. You have made your points quite well, and I appreciate your intelligent contributions to this thread. This, to me, is like when a child has been admittedly naughty, but the parent still runs to his or her aid when someone tries to do them harm. I feel that way about UT... sue me. I hate to sound shrill, but this is, after all, a message board dealing with The University of Texas. I would much prefer UT to become like Berkeley (relatively small) than a diploma mill.
So does he bring them water and more snacks when they run out in the meetings? Sorry, it was there, had to.
I don't like Perry (and I'm a Republican), and I don't like what I perceive to be his view as to where UT should go. That said, pretty much all of the Regents have UT ties, and I have trouble thinking they would act to harm UT.
that was well before my time, but if there was disdain for him i doubt it was because of where he did his undergrad/grad work.
I was thinking he was disliked because he ran off Jackie Sherrill, but that was actually the next president (Mobley).
Vandiver was a disaster at A&M. He was a History prof that essentially tried to make A&M into something it wasn't, namely he just didn't understand our mission or traditions. He was a liberal arts academic at a school that will always be first and foremost an engineering school with additional emphasis in agriculture and business. Nothing wrong with Liberal Arts but not at the expense of other departments. He also resented the Corps and had it changed from reporting to the President to reporting to the VP of Student Services, essentially treating it as just another student organization. He just didn't get A&M.
why is it that at aggy, you always have to "get it"? What is there to "get"? And, most of aggy that I know under the age og 35 either despise the corp or dont care one way or the other about them. Is this another "from the outside looking in" thing?
The women in the Corps issue was minor by comparison and wasn't blamed on him. Women were already at A&M and in the Corps, they just weren't integrated into the outfits. In 1990 they integrated the Non Band outfits and the first female was voted into the Ross Volunteers (they were eligible before but none had been elected). Mobley was President then. Laugh about the funny Aggy all you want but we are a unique school that has very deep traditions. You don't have to be an Aggie to understand them but certainly a President has to respect the military tradition of the school if they hope to be successful, if for no other reason the overwhelming majority of big donors were Corps guys (and in the '80s it was almost all of them). Vandiver wanted to make A&M into more of Generic State U and that was never going to work. The President at A&M doesn't need to be an Aggie though. Bob Gates was an incredible President and was far from it, he did respect our values though. Vandiver was hostile to the Corps and a Texas grad, that was just never going to be a good fit. It's not like Texas would ever be accepting of an Aggie as President.
These discussions usually seem to devolve into finger pointing. Which is too bad, because it pulls attention away from the true issues. To reiterate, this isn't about A&M*, other than the fact that A&M has been affected by "the 7 solutions" as well. It has nothing to do with the SEC, football, Aggie hypocrisy, etc. There are lots of threads here that focus on those topics. This is about UT and how UT's president is getting along with the board of regents. To that end it would be nice to see discussion on how good a job Powers has done. Also interesting to see discussion on what, if anything, he has done to make himself vulnerable enough to potentially be removed. * = if someone has concrete evidence that Power's removal is part of an Aggie conspiracy to hurt UT that, obviously, would also be an interesting and apropos addition to this discussion.
Actually John Connally was a great Governor for A&M as he supported Rudder in changing A&M from a College to a University and allowing in women. Connally was a Texan first, foremost, and always. Those were very controversial decisions for A&M at the time but certainly were the right course. As for the comments about A&M's values they are expected but whatever. A&M has a strong military heritage and the Corps of Cadets and that was even more pronounced in the '80s. We are a proud school that is a Tier 1 University in every aspect but we are unique in culture in many ways both from UT but also from just about any other school because of our history. Having a President that values our traditions is helpful just as any school would want the same.
Connally was just an example. Maybe I should've used Dolph Briscoe (or any other UT grad governor), or would that, too, give you an excuse to launch your spiel? Frankly, this seems to be the wrong board for Aggie proselytizing. Let's compare Connally vs. Perry, though. First, a little background:
m/ - Nowhere have I said that UT should just accept the 7 solutions. As a matter of fact, I said that UT and A&M should work together to embrace enough change to be protected but not so much change that they are damaged. I also said that the 7 solutions should be tried at a smaller school, and then those solutions that are effective can be implemented in the state's flagship universities. There's lots of stuff we can disagree on re: A&M and UT. The schools are rivals. But I don't see that Perry is trying to mess up UT for political gain. If he did so he would infuriate UT graduates. And casual fans wouldn't notice the difference. But that's just my two cents. I suppose we can agree to disagree. On another note, I haven't seen anyone mention WGU (I think that's its name). The online university that is run by the state of Texas. That may be a crucible for the 7 solutions.
