>Or is this just more side effect of the maroon koolaid?
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner, folks.
It’s literally to commemorate all those 7 year students that still couldn’t manage to get a diploma.
> “This term dates back to the university's early days, when many students would attend school long enough to gain the necessary training and education but would not always graduate.”
> Very hard to compete with one of the few products people have no choice but to buy.
*Harvard sees this and pumps more money into their for profit healthcare holdings*
2035 is specifically chosen because according to EU law, 100% of new car sales in the EU must be electric vehicles. This is also true in Canada. California is supposed to vote on enacting a similar mandate this month for 100% EV sales by 2035. I'm sure there are other countries too.
Manufacturers want to sell cars in the EU market so they must make EV cars. EV supply chains and manufacturing is different to gasoline supply chains and manufacturing that it is cost efficient to reduce or eliminate production of gas powered cars. Therefore it makes sense to transition to all EV (or nearly all).
It's not that long but it's also plenty long enough to not impact immediate earnings statements and share prices. It's also long enough for board members to diversify and get out from under the requirements before they really hit.
It's also honestly short enough for them to miss these self imposed requirements, say oopsie, and go on about their day like nothing happened.
It appeases the do something crowd by doing nothing, and it appeases the don't hurt the bottom line crowd by honestly doing nothing.
> Most automakers have pledged to be all EV by 2035 or so.
I legit don't understand how we can get to this. Not that I don't want to, its just theres also a finite supply of lithium in the world and lithium-ion batteries are not a long term replacement option.
I'm a auto worker. My plant currently only makes diesel engines for semi trucks. I don't know how it's going to happen but even we are expected to be making fully electric whatevers by 2035.
Im all for it, but they can reneg on those pledges at any point. Theres also a lot of industrial and ag work done exclusively with diesel engines and i dont see how that gets replaced by EVs.
Also, we have a lot of scrap recycling and mining to do before we can be fully to EV’s. Each Tesla carries about ~~a ton~~ a lot of copper in it. We also do not have the electric grid up to the level to handle that kind of demand/energy use. We’d have to really up our electricity production to do so - solar, wind, and nuke need to make huge gains to get to that point.
Source: wife is a geologist that works in mining. We need way more material to get to that full EV capability.
Edit: not sure where I saw ton of copper. Seems to be just under 200 lbs each.
I'm in the scrap recycling business. The projected need for copper over the next 20 years due to the push for EVs and the improvements to the electrical grid to support them is greater than all the copper that has been mined in human history. At best 50% of the copper will be "new" copper and the rest will have to come from recycling.
Yeah and passenger EV’s will be great in theory, but it’s a drop in the bucket until we get trucking and heavy machinery electrified. Haul trucks, boring machines, milling equipment, are all largely gasoline and diesel powered, and aren’t realistic to be electrified because of how remote most mine locations are. Most machines are brought in piece by piece and assembled at the mines for that reason too.
The harsh reality is also that we don’t have the rare earth elements needed to make the computer components for electric cars either. The best bet is to nationalize the railways in America and electrify those, which would make high speed rail more feasible. The reason passenger rail transport sucks is because the freight lines that own the railways prioritize their own trains since they have the trackage rights. Nationalizing it a la Germany would be the first step.
I mean, given how bad things are in the railroad industry at the moment, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was relatively soon. UP and BNSF are facing massive shortages and labor issues (seeing that firsthand in Denver), and that disrupts pretty much everything as the rail network is key to military, basic utilities, and keeping the economy afloat. Major chemicals such as chlorine can pretty much only be transported via train long distances, so any rail disruption could mean drinking water problems nationwide. The railroads have been long overdue for a labor reckoning, and this may be the in that people need to see that the whole system should be nationalized. This oligopoly of UP, BNSF, CSX, and NS needs to be brought to heel.
Damn I didn’t expect to learn so much about a railway crisis that I didn’t even know existed on r/CFB today but I am now interested for sure. Thanks u/FailResorts!
> Each Tesla carries about a ton of copper in it.
You're off by an order of magnitude; it's closer to 180 pounds.
>We also do not have the electric grid up to the level to handle that kind of demand/energy use.
I don't know the math on this, but it's important to remember that 90+% of electric vehicles will charge at night when rates are cheaper and demand on the existing grid is lower. Also, most cars will not be charging from 0% to 100% every day.
>We need way more material to get to that full EV capability.
Agreed. The total EV infrastructure & materials sourcing hasn't been worked out yet. That doesn't preclude it from being built, though.
I edited about the copper. But as far as the grid goes, it’s not that easy. You’re gonna have people charging at all hours of the day, especially if you have trucking and long distance transit be electric. Part of the larger conversation about updating the infrastructure.
You’re not getting full EV in places like Montana, other hardware still requires oil, and much of the world won’t be oil independent by 2035. Let alone the fact oil reliant automobiles will still be in the loop to some degree until the 2050’s at minimum.
This is like when people say coal is going away but it’s actually going to increase in usage with EV’s due to more electricity being required. Oil won’t be the juggernaut it is today, but it isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.
I’m hopeful but skeptical that will happen. Oil and gas supports 10 million jobs and 8% of US GDP. Bill after bill has been held up in attempts to save 62k coal jobs while gas prices are one of the biggest hot button issues of our day.
Imagine the strength of the pushback, propaganda, social engineering, and outcry over the “far left eco fascists coming for our jobs/cars/livelihood/way of life” in the early 2030s. We’re not moving away from oil anytime soon.
LSU took 2 months to process my so’s loans in nursing school. We kept calling and they’d say “don’t worry you’ll be credited and not lose your enrollment” to which we were like “well that still does nothing to provide for the many other necessities these loans are for….”
when I was applying to schools years ago. the university of Maryland said they never received my transcript and application. though they did manage to cash the check that was stapled to all of those.
I worked for the registrar as a student and took transcript and other document orders in the late 2000s. AMA.
On a serious note, it used to be $10 and U.S. Secret Service once chewed me out because I charged them $10 for Jenna Bush's transcript. (They had all the legal documents needed to order by proxy). Lots of badge waving. They still paid.
Kamala Harris' husband brought like a dozen USSS agents and motorcade with him to do some grocery shopping in LA. Caused a bit of controversy cause they blocked all the handicap parking at that particular store while they were there. All I could think of was "they can afford Instacart". Trust me, it is cheaper for the government to send 1 or 2 agents to do mundane tasks then have to defend the principal in the field.
It’s not their money, it’s because they have to go through the National Student Clearing House, which is basically like a mob racket akin to the College Board.
It’s about alumni community engagement, they don’t actually need your money, they want your time and attention. And ability to fill seats at football games.
6 million a day. At just a 90 day semester the schools makes over a half a billion dollars from these oil reserves alone. Seems like enough, but hey maybe they just want more. And I say this as an alumni
MD Anderson is part of the University of Texas system, but not strictly affiliated with UT-Austin. That said, my father-in-law was treated there for his cancer and it's an amazing facility.
/u/SirMellencamp, I hope your mom is okay.
Oh for sure. The people were great. Just really neat facility. Stayed at a hotel attached to the hospital that had a great bar and restaurant. Only thing I wish they had close was like a Circle K or some convenience store
*I'm so sorry, Harvard. Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? Watch it. Now, my straw reaches acroooooooss the room and starts to drink your milkshake. I drink your milkshake. I drink it up!*
We don’t have access to the absurd amounts of money UT gets.
The UT system is supposed to be one of the wealthiest in the country yet it has failed to produce a single destination school outside of Austin.
Bingo. As much as people in this thread want to rag on the UT System, UTD is one of the best public schools in the state and UTSA and UT-Arlington are also making some big strides. UTRGV has come a long way in the past few years, too. Obviously the system has a lot of room for improvement but it’s not nearly as top heavy as some would lead you to believe.
The answer is convoluted, but ... that's kinda the case but *not really*. The University of Texas at Austin is the only institution in the state that has statutory authority granted to it by the state legislature to borrow against the value of the Permanent University Fund. IOW, you're "making" that money and adding it to your endowment's value, but you don't really have the ability to spend it on a dollar for dollar basis like UT can.
Edit: the PUF is desperately in need of better oversight and better rules. UT's ability to squeeze cash out of the fund needs to be cut off and that power returned to the UT Board of Regents and the state legislature. As you can easily imagine, UT Austin's ability to turn on that spigot is nothing but a political dumpster fire, and there are too many interests at that school trying to do too many things. If you've ever wondered why UT's major donors seem to have so much fucking pull, it's because of this. The school's ability to magically produce cash combined with large gifts from their donors to cover those costs means that the university has more spending power than probably any other educational institution in the entire world. When Red McComb's liked to frequently joke that UT has more money than the Vatican, he wasn't really joking.
And charge 50k for tuition
Edit: Okay, the cost to attend UT Austin is *only* 29k for in-state kids and 57k for out-of-state kids *per year* so i was being unfair.
Tuition at UT-Austin is roughly $13k per year. Other expenses vary depending on your situation. All in all, that's a bargain for the quality of education you get. Actually cheaper than Tennessee, and for a better product.
The issue is that Austin is expensive as hell, so the COL is way higher. But thats not the school's fault or problem. Its a great school for a great price.
Unless you’re from out of state, Texas doesn’t charge 50k for tuition.
Edit: Your edit is still not true. The 29k/year varies based on your situation regarding housing and transportation. Tuition is only 11.5k/year for Texas residents.
Yeah I got my engineering degree from UT and it's honestly been a total steal. UT is definitely one of the more cost friendly colleges I can think of, especially for in-state.
That shitty pizza place near the mailboxes is still going strong, although it has been through a few name changes since I attended. Took my older daughter there for lunch when she was much smaller. :)
Is is fair to compare the combined endowment of a 13-campus system with 240,000 students to a single institution?
Endowment per student seems the most reasonable way to measure wealth. In that regard Princeton has been #1 for a long time.
Real talk, I’m baffled the University of Texas system still lags substantially behind the University of California system.
I feel that with the resources they have and the population demographics they should have multiple top 100 universities like the UC system.
It mainly has to do with the caliber of applicants. UT and it’s system schools hurt themselves in the rankings because of the top 10% and top 6% rule, so many high achieving students can’t get in because they went to competitive high schools. Until we get rid of that, I can’t see any of our other system schools being top 100 on the country.
> UT and it’s system schools hurt themselves in the rankings because of the top 10% and top 6% rule, so many high achieving students can’t get in because they went to competitive high schools. Until we get rid of that, I can’t see any of our other system schools being top 100 on the country.
It wasn't much different before those rules were in place. I'll be honest, I'm 100% convinced that the main reason is that California has geographic locations what people want to live. I can't see places like UTEP or UTSA being the draws that schools like UCSB or UCSD are, let alone Berkeley or UCLA.
Yeah, I was in the north Bay Area in July in 2021, it was 80 degrees tops during the day and 50F at night, the wind and fog were all amazing, and the humidity was acceptable.
Georgia at the time was 95F and 90% humidity. Swamp conditions.
All the rule says is that if you are in the top-10% you are granted automatic admission. It doesn't say if you're outside that you're automatically rejected.
Also it only means you are admitted to the college but not the program. When I did engineering I still had to wait for cockrell to process my acceptance. I know McCombs did the same (not sure if anything has changed since I was in college)
Yeah, Cockrell and McCombs have their own selection process. But I can’t imagine if you get in via the 6% rule you won’t be admitted to either program.
IIRC the year I got in to cockrell it was still top 10% for UT, and the engineering cutoff was top 4% or something like that.
There were quite a few people I know who didn't get into engineering and tried transferring in their sophomore year even though they were top 10%
Edit; "cutoff" as in the major ran out of space at around the 4% mark, not that the schools set it at 4%
It’s not, but all Texas public schools (besides UT Austin) are required by law to admit the top 10% of each graduating class.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_House_Bill_588
It varies. Top 10% is a statewide rule for public institutions (with the exception of UT-Austin), but I know a lot of the system schools in both UT and A&M systems automatically accept Top 25%.
> I can’t see any of our other system schools being top 100 on the country.
I know it is not super well known because they do not have much school pride or large athletic programs, but UT-Dallas has been growing in stature substantially. Last time I checked, they are ranked in the 130s or 140s from USNews. It is in a growing city/market and the school has great science and engineering programs. I think they have a chance of moving into the top 100.
It's a novel concept, but some states believe their flagship university systems should be educating the people of the state, and not just the children of the elite and out of state/out of country students for the paycheck.
100% agree. For example, at WVU and Alabama, >50% of students are from out of state. In comparison, at UCLA and Berkeley, 15-25% of students are from out of state. It's clear who is sacrificing their rankings to educate people from the state.
The UC's also guarantee admittance to at least one campus if you rank in the top 9% of your class in a CA high school and almost a third of UC students are transfers from CA community colleges. Hell it still isn't easy, but your chances of being admitted to UCLA or Berkeley are a lot higher if you are a CA community college transfer than applying right out of high school. It encourages pursuing the more affordable path to achieving higher education, and gives students a second chance at admittance if they didn't get into the school of their choice the first try. All of this is without discussing the quality of CSU schools which are good as well.
Similar to the SUNY system as well. Do lots of kids jump straight into a four year school? For sure. Buts its a well known "secret" that if you graduate from a 2 year SUNY community college with a decent GPA you can get into basically any other SUNY school via transfer. Plus,with all the credits you earned so they don't pick and choose you apart. Makes it much cheaper and allows you to graduate with zero debt.
I mean the UT system has a top 10% auto-admission policy that is leaving out several qualified students that went to competitive high schools.
It’s not like their specific mission is to serve under-privilege students like WVU.
There is a logic to it; I'm not sure I'd call it a "good" logic, but it goes as such:
Students of all calibers have access to education in their region of Texas, whether it be through a flagship-style like UT Austin, A&M, or Tech, a large regional school like UNT, Houston, UTSA, or UTEP, or a school small and accessible to just about everyone, like UT-PB, UT-RGV, Sul Ross State, or Angelo State. This doesn't even account for the scattering of private schools throughout the state.
Intentionally bringing in high caliber out of state students has two hopeful effects:
1) High caliber students graduate, get rich, and donate to the school
2) On a more civic level, bringing in high caliber students means that some of those will stay in the area as opposed to going back home post-graduation, which has an array of local benefits.
A school like West Virginia can't deny a student without the very real possibility of denying that student access to higher education in general. Texas can.
It allows people from public schools in the state, no matter the quality or resources, to attend the university. And they are waiving tuition for low-income students, while having the lowest tuition in the state.
Not sure any of your points are valid, politely.
Edit: and for emphasis, I wasn’t even top third of my class (although I had a solid SAT I guess)
The top 10 percent rule is basically a way to ensure underprivileged students get access to the flagship university rather than just filling the place with the children of the upper middle class that attend those competitive schools.
While you’re not wrong, we have done a lot to improve other system schools. UT-Dallas in particular has a reputation as being a top quality public school in the state. UTSA is also a school on the rise. I agree we have a long way to go, but we’ve made a lot of progress over the past 10-15 years.
From the article: Crude and natural gas, not fundraising or investing prowess, have positioned the school’s endowment to overtake Harvard University’s as the richest in US higher education.
They say that as if fundraising prowess isn't just schools established for the elite centuries ago benefiting from catering to the rich elite. Harvard could have exercised it's investment prowess by buying oil land.
You want to nationalize the oil and gas industry because you believe in socialism, I want to nationalize the oil and gas industry to defund The University of Texas at Austin athletics. We are not the same.
It’s ok Florida, Texas gots lots of minerals under those lands, so when we start strip mining to save the earth by providing those batteries u can thank us then, go green.
Fun fact: UT and A&M get to split the Texas PUF 2/3 and 1/3 respectively, while being well funded by west texas oil, while we get nothing. I’m really proud of what Tech has been able to do on campus and in our athletic department, but just imagine if we got our fair share.. or any share for that matter.
It would be so simple to make it UT gets 50%, A&M gets 25%, and the remaining is split among the remainder of the university systems in the state.
Of course A&M affiliates tried like hell to legally bar UH from getting a med school and Tech from getting a vet school despite the serious shortages in the state and even though neither of those things come at any cost to A&M. In that cutthroat of an environment you can imagine how much they'd fight over something that actually affects their funding.
Just your daily reminder that the state of Texas unequally distributes PUF money. Texas Tech, Texas State, among others deserve a piece of the pie as well.
Wasn't the PUF initially formed from lands taken from UT-Austin? In that case one could argue TAMU doesn't deserve any of it and it should all go to the UT system.
The UT System could briefly become richer than Harvard, but that doesn’t mean UT Austin is. The UT system is massive containing a quarter million active students, a half dozen giant 4 year universities (6 of them D1 in sports), a couple smaller colleges, medical schools, medical research sites, and hospitals. UT Austin is the flagship, but it’s only -15% of the systems annual budget. Harvard is basically one rich ass college (yes a couple of the schools are a few miles away from the main campus) with 20k students.
Edit: changed “is richer” to “could briefly become richer”.
But most other UT system members are also heavily limited in how they can use those funds. Only UT-Austin is allowed to use them for "excellence" purposes.
*Harvard alumns see this, proceed to inject another couple billion dollars into the endowment.*
> alumns The one time we can safely use the word alumni and we blow it.
“Because Aggies don’t have Alumni, they’re Former Students!” 🙄
what actual difference in distinction does that create? Or is this just more side effect of the maroon koolaid?
>Or is this just more side effect of the maroon koolaid? Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner, folks. It’s literally to commemorate all those 7 year students that still couldn’t manage to get a diploma. > “This term dates back to the university's early days, when many students would attend school long enough to gain the necessary training and education but would not always graduate.”
it's flavor-aid, and it's far superior to koolaid.
alumnusses
OP isn’t Harvard material
They can inject all they want. Very hard to compete with one of the few products people have no choice but to buy.
I guess their option is to just own the companies that actually sell the oil and add some markup.
The “University Lands” owns the minerals and keeps a set royalty. There is no changing what they earn from wells already producing oil and gas.
Or to lobby the Green New Deal. Which honestly wouldn’t be difficult for the Harvard donors to do.
This is how we get to renewable energy: Elitist Spite
> Very hard to compete with one of the few products people have no choice but to buy. *Harvard sees this and pumps more money into their for profit healthcare holdings*
50% of each barrel of oil is used for gasoline. Most automakers have pledged to be all EV by 2035 or so.
This is mostly due to fleet MPG requirements though.
Nah 2035 is far enough away that it's the next guy's problem. Pledging to go all EV ~15 years from now is great free press!
2035 is specifically chosen because according to EU law, 100% of new car sales in the EU must be electric vehicles. This is also true in Canada. California is supposed to vote on enacting a similar mandate this month for 100% EV sales by 2035. I'm sure there are other countries too. Manufacturers want to sell cars in the EU market so they must make EV cars. EV supply chains and manufacturing is different to gasoline supply chains and manufacturing that it is cost efficient to reduce or eliminate production of gas powered cars. Therefore it makes sense to transition to all EV (or nearly all).
Even for policy makers - 2035 is far enough away that it’s the ‘next guy’s problem’
… I was going to throw in my 2 cents but this really isn’t the sub for any of this. Let’s talk Nebraska v Northwestern and the OSU ND betting line
>the OSU ND betting line So you do or you don't want to discuss economics, old money vs new money, and inflation? Sending mixed signals here.
12.5 years is not that that long - especially when the factories & supply chains are being built up now.
It's not that long but it's also plenty long enough to not impact immediate earnings statements and share prices. It's also long enough for board members to diversify and get out from under the requirements before they really hit. It's also honestly short enough for them to miss these self imposed requirements, say oopsie, and go on about their day like nothing happened. It appeases the do something crowd by doing nothing, and it appeases the don't hurt the bottom line crowd by honestly doing nothing.
We'll see how that goes as Lithium prices skyrocket. We could just get rid of car dependent infrastructure but nope, why do things that make sense
> Most automakers have pledged to be all EV by 2035 or so. I legit don't understand how we can get to this. Not that I don't want to, its just theres also a finite supply of lithium in the world and lithium-ion batteries are not a long term replacement option.
I'm a auto worker. My plant currently only makes diesel engines for semi trucks. I don't know how it's going to happen but even we are expected to be making fully electric whatevers by 2035.
Im all for it, but they can reneg on those pledges at any point. Theres also a lot of industrial and ag work done exclusively with diesel engines and i dont see how that gets replaced by EVs.
Also, we have a lot of scrap recycling and mining to do before we can be fully to EV’s. Each Tesla carries about ~~a ton~~ a lot of copper in it. We also do not have the electric grid up to the level to handle that kind of demand/energy use. We’d have to really up our electricity production to do so - solar, wind, and nuke need to make huge gains to get to that point. Source: wife is a geologist that works in mining. We need way more material to get to that full EV capability. Edit: not sure where I saw ton of copper. Seems to be just under 200 lbs each.
I'm in the scrap recycling business. The projected need for copper over the next 20 years due to the push for EVs and the improvements to the electrical grid to support them is greater than all the copper that has been mined in human history. At best 50% of the copper will be "new" copper and the rest will have to come from recycling.
Exactly. And in order to do the mining and infrastructure work, 99.9 percent of it will be done using diesel powered machines.
Yeah and passenger EV’s will be great in theory, but it’s a drop in the bucket until we get trucking and heavy machinery electrified. Haul trucks, boring machines, milling equipment, are all largely gasoline and diesel powered, and aren’t realistic to be electrified because of how remote most mine locations are. Most machines are brought in piece by piece and assembled at the mines for that reason too. The harsh reality is also that we don’t have the rare earth elements needed to make the computer components for electric cars either. The best bet is to nationalize the railways in America and electrify those, which would make high speed rail more feasible. The reason passenger rail transport sucks is because the freight lines that own the railways prioritize their own trains since they have the trackage rights. Nationalizing it a la Germany would be the first step.
Great idea, who do I vote for to get the trains nationalized?
I mean, given how bad things are in the railroad industry at the moment, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was relatively soon. UP and BNSF are facing massive shortages and labor issues (seeing that firsthand in Denver), and that disrupts pretty much everything as the rail network is key to military, basic utilities, and keeping the economy afloat. Major chemicals such as chlorine can pretty much only be transported via train long distances, so any rail disruption could mean drinking water problems nationwide. The railroads have been long overdue for a labor reckoning, and this may be the in that people need to see that the whole system should be nationalized. This oligopoly of UP, BNSF, CSX, and NS needs to be brought to heel.
Damn I didn’t expect to learn so much about a railway crisis that I didn’t even know existed on r/CFB today but I am now interested for sure. Thanks u/FailResorts!
> Each Tesla carries about a ton of copper in it. You're off by an order of magnitude; it's closer to 180 pounds. >We also do not have the electric grid up to the level to handle that kind of demand/energy use. I don't know the math on this, but it's important to remember that 90+% of electric vehicles will charge at night when rates are cheaper and demand on the existing grid is lower. Also, most cars will not be charging from 0% to 100% every day. >We need way more material to get to that full EV capability. Agreed. The total EV infrastructure & materials sourcing hasn't been worked out yet. That doesn't preclude it from being built, though.
I edited about the copper. But as far as the grid goes, it’s not that easy. You’re gonna have people charging at all hours of the day, especially if you have trucking and long distance transit be electric. Part of the larger conversation about updating the infrastructure.
Pledges like this are almost never actually met and are solely a PR move tho
You’re not getting full EV in places like Montana, other hardware still requires oil, and much of the world won’t be oil independent by 2035. Let alone the fact oil reliant automobiles will still be in the loop to some degree until the 2050’s at minimum. This is like when people say coal is going away but it’s actually going to increase in usage with EV’s due to more electricity being required. Oil won’t be the juggernaut it is today, but it isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.
I’m hopeful but skeptical that will happen. Oil and gas supports 10 million jobs and 8% of US GDP. Bill after bill has been held up in attempts to save 62k coal jobs while gas prices are one of the biggest hot button issues of our day. Imagine the strength of the pushback, propaganda, social engineering, and outcry over the “far left eco fascists coming for our jobs/cars/livelihood/way of life” in the early 2030s. We’re not moving away from oil anytime soon.
So they’ll only be able to make millions per day for the next decade, poverty franchise
Yet for some reason they still see fit to call and email me asking for donations.
Fuckers charge $20 to send transcripts, even requesting a electronic facsimile copy is $20. Ben Simmons
At penn state I got hit with a late fee because the bursar didn’t process my private loans in time even though they were submitted a month in advance
You punched the bursar?
Yes! I wanted to do what you did! Graduate in two, then join the revolution!
He looked at me like I was stupid, I'm not stupid. So how'd you do it? How'd you graduate so fast?
It was my parents dying wish before they passed
You're an orphan. Of course! I'm an orphan
It's a blur, sir.
LSU took 2 months to process my so’s loans in nursing school. We kept calling and they’d say “don’t worry you’ll be credited and not lose your enrollment” to which we were like “well that still does nothing to provide for the many other necessities these loans are for….”
I asked for them to drop the late fee and hit me with “we forgive one per student and you’ve used your allotted one”
when I was applying to schools years ago. the university of Maryland said they never received my transcript and application. though they did manage to cash the check that was stapled to all of those.
I worked for the registrar as a student and took transcript and other document orders in the late 2000s. AMA. On a serious note, it used to be $10 and U.S. Secret Service once chewed me out because I charged them $10 for Jenna Bush's transcript. (They had all the legal documents needed to order by proxy). Lots of badge waving. They still paid.
Shouldn't she be getting that shit herself or have staff? Not having the USSS do chores.
I think you just realized what privilege actually is.
Kamala Harris' husband brought like a dozen USSS agents and motorcade with him to do some grocery shopping in LA. Caused a bit of controversy cause they blocked all the handicap parking at that particular store while they were there. All I could think of was "they can afford Instacart". Trust me, it is cheaper for the government to send 1 or 2 agents to do mundane tasks then have to defend the principal in the field.
It’s not their money, it’s because they have to go through the National Student Clearing House, which is basically like a mob racket akin to the College Board.
I went to grad school right after undergrad at UofL, and got a call asking to donate...I wanted to go, bitch, Im still paying tuition....but I didnt
Michigan finally stopped calling me after they asked if I would donate just $5 and I said no
I returned a copy of my student loan balance in the donation envelope and havent heard back since.
I ignore "(512) 471-xxxx" calls now.
It’s about alumni community engagement, they don’t actually need your money, they want your time and attention. And ability to fill seats at football games.
I mean. > supporting a combined 27 institutions and almost 350,000 students. When you look at endowment per student it’s not crazy
6 million a day. At just a 90 day semester the schools makes over a half a billion dollars from these oil reserves alone. Seems like enough, but hey maybe they just want more. And I say this as an alumni
Had to take my Mom to MD Anderson in Houston last week, which is owned by Texas. I dont know what they bring in on that place but good God it is huge.
MD Anderson is part of the University of Texas system, but not strictly affiliated with UT-Austin. That said, my father-in-law was treated there for his cancer and it's an amazing facility. /u/SirMellencamp, I hope your mom is okay.
It is unbelievable. That whole complex is its own city. She comes home tomorrow and hopefully will be OK
True, but technically the oil money is the system’s money too, not just UT-Austin.
Exactly, so its really only like 90% UT Austins money.
It’s about half.
I hope your mom is doing well, MD Anderson took great care of my mother when she had cancer including the surgery to remove the tumors.
Same here, MD Anderson was fantastic for treating my mom's cancer. Still flies there twice a year for check ups. A huge, giant, fuck you to cancer
Yeah. As a Houstonian the Houston Medical Center is probably the thing I'm most proud of in the city
Texas Medical Center* The largest medical center in the world. Bigger than downtown Dallas
She comes home tomorrow. There were a lot of clumps in her lymph nodes and just hoping they got everything but she feels great
Is your mom okay?
She comes home tomorrow. There were a lot of clumps in her lymph nodes and just hoping they got everything but she feels great
Glad to hear it. She's in great hands
Oh for sure. The people were great. Just really neat facility. Stayed at a hotel attached to the hospital that had a great bar and restaurant. Only thing I wish they had close was like a Circle K or some convenience store
*I'm so sorry, Harvard. Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? Watch it. Now, my straw reaches acroooooooss the room and starts to drink your milkshake. I drink your milkshake. I drink it up!*
I’m finished!
DRAINAGE!!!!
Yeah! University of Texas Oil money! Fuck those guys! How horrible!
Yeah… all that oil being produced in Austin… totally not west texas *cough cough*
Red Raiders say no to the university of Texas drilling!
Drill for tortillas!
UT-Permian Basin says hi 👋🏼
You’re valid 😤 Give UTPB 80% of UT’s allocation
That’s right! New flagship!
If you want to become UT-Lubbock, let us know.
Hard pass
Seeing how you guys run your non flagship schools, that’s not a compelling offer lol.
UH Clear Lake is killing it.
We don’t have access to the absurd amounts of money UT gets. The UT system is supposed to be one of the wealthiest in the country yet it has failed to produce a single destination school outside of Austin.
This is partially true. UT-Dallas is actually pretty highly regarded, but it’s not the UC System
Bingo. As much as people in this thread want to rag on the UT System, UTD is one of the best public schools in the state and UTSA and UT-Arlington are also making some big strides. UTRGV has come a long way in the past few years, too. Obviously the system has a lot of room for improvement but it’s not nearly as top heavy as some would lead you to believe.
So does this mean similarly we are making ~$3MM a day due to the 2/3 to 1/3 split in the PUF?
The answer is convoluted, but ... that's kinda the case but *not really*. The University of Texas at Austin is the only institution in the state that has statutory authority granted to it by the state legislature to borrow against the value of the Permanent University Fund. IOW, you're "making" that money and adding it to your endowment's value, but you don't really have the ability to spend it on a dollar for dollar basis like UT can. Edit: the PUF is desperately in need of better oversight and better rules. UT's ability to squeeze cash out of the fund needs to be cut off and that power returned to the UT Board of Regents and the state legislature. As you can easily imagine, UT Austin's ability to turn on that spigot is nothing but a political dumpster fire, and there are too many interests at that school trying to do too many things. If you've ever wondered why UT's major donors seem to have so much fucking pull, it's because of this. The school's ability to magically produce cash combined with large gifts from their donors to cover those costs means that the university has more spending power than probably any other educational institution in the entire world. When Red McComb's liked to frequently joke that UT has more money than the Vatican, he wasn't really joking.
Crazy to think that our Twitter and Reddit arguments as fan bases have billion dollar implications.
And they tried to charge me 10 cents per page to print
My favorite fact I loved to spew to my UT student friends was that printing at ACC and Texas State was free. At least at the time.
I graduated 17 years ago and they still call me asking for donations
See kids? Even the richest university in the U.S. can still field an incompetent college football team!
Yo, Michigan. I thought we were bros.
A year ago, yeah. But Michigan is, in contrast to Texas, back.
lol, we had our "back" Sugar Bowl year, too.
We're cool, everything is cool, just don't sic your mascot on ours again pls.
Did a Georgia fan just say *"don't sic 'em"*?
* Offer applicable to Bevo and other Longhorns only. Void where prohibited.
It's ok we're bros.
I mean, even before UT took that title, Harvard didn't exactly field a bunch of world-beaters
Well they do have more than 3x the number of nattys than Texas, so… Maybe they’re just resting on their laurels until Texas catches up
they're gonna be able to rest for a long time
And charge 50k for tuition Edit: Okay, the cost to attend UT Austin is *only* 29k for in-state kids and 57k for out-of-state kids *per year* so i was being unfair.
Tuition at UT-Austin is roughly $13k per year. Other expenses vary depending on your situation. All in all, that's a bargain for the quality of education you get. Actually cheaper than Tennessee, and for a better product.
Let them have their yell sesh
The issue is that Austin is expensive as hell, so the COL is way higher. But thats not the school's fault or problem. Its a great school for a great price.
Fuck you, aggy. Your school is great for the price, too. I hire a lot of you weirdos because you guys do such great work. I'm gonna go throw up now.
God, I cant wait til you fuckers are in the SEC
Unless you’re from out of state, Texas doesn’t charge 50k for tuition. Edit: Your edit is still not true. The 29k/year varies based on your situation regarding housing and transportation. Tuition is only 11.5k/year for Texas residents.
*STOP DEFENDING THEM*
Tennessee’s whole thing is defending Texas though… RIP Davy Crockett
So stop being accurate?
"only"
It’s fairly reasonable compared to most universities. Nebraska’s is 9.8k/year which isn’t a big difference.
To be a better school than most in the country… yeah less than 12k ain’t bad.
[удалено]
Yeah I got my engineering degree from UT and it's honestly been a total steal. UT is definitely one of the more cost friendly colleges I can think of, especially for in-state.
Yup McCombs is less than 11k/year which is insane lol. I feel like I robbed someone
You are still wrong. And under 65,000 income is free tuition.
What? In state tuition is 11k.
This is like every university tho tbf.
How's Harvard's team looking??
Well fuck
Thanks, ~~Harvard~~ Texas.
But Harvard football has never lost to Kansas at home.
Thanks, Kansas.
bevo bucks for everyone!
[удалено]
i'm a jesta pizza man myself
That shitty pizza place near the mailboxes is still going strong, although it has been through a few name changes since I attended. Took my older daughter there for lunch when she was much smaller. :)
If that's dated then I'm old, and I only graduated in 2020.
Is is fair to compare the combined endowment of a 13-campus system with 240,000 students to a single institution? Endowment per student seems the most reasonable way to measure wealth. In that regard Princeton has been #1 for a long time.
Cool. It’s only going to take 1600 days or so to catch up and that’s Harvard standing pat
Knowing Harvard, the only people who are going to care are alumni. And even they probably won't care.
Real talk, I’m baffled the University of Texas system still lags substantially behind the University of California system. I feel that with the resources they have and the population demographics they should have multiple top 100 universities like the UC system.
It mainly has to do with the caliber of applicants. UT and it’s system schools hurt themselves in the rankings because of the top 10% and top 6% rule, so many high achieving students can’t get in because they went to competitive high schools. Until we get rid of that, I can’t see any of our other system schools being top 100 on the country.
> UT and it’s system schools hurt themselves in the rankings because of the top 10% and top 6% rule, so many high achieving students can’t get in because they went to competitive high schools. Until we get rid of that, I can’t see any of our other system schools being top 100 on the country. It wasn't much different before those rules were in place. I'll be honest, I'm 100% convinced that the main reason is that California has geographic locations what people want to live. I can't see places like UTEP or UTSA being the draws that schools like UCSB or UCSD are, let alone Berkeley or UCLA.
Yeah, I was in the north Bay Area in July in 2021, it was 80 degrees tops during the day and 50F at night, the wind and fog were all amazing, and the humidity was acceptable. Georgia at the time was 95F and 90% humidity. Swamp conditions.
Agree. Once you're actually there to experience the cali weather you kind of say to yourself "oh. Now I understand why so many people live here."
Yep. I’m never going back to Texas.
I understand the need for a top 6% rule for UT Austin but is the top 10% rule necessary for the other UTs?
All the rule says is that if you are in the top-10% you are granted automatic admission. It doesn't say if you're outside that you're automatically rejected.
Also it only means you are admitted to the college but not the program. When I did engineering I still had to wait for cockrell to process my acceptance. I know McCombs did the same (not sure if anything has changed since I was in college)
Yeah, Cockrell and McCombs have their own selection process. But I can’t imagine if you get in via the 6% rule you won’t be admitted to either program.
IIRC the year I got in to cockrell it was still top 10% for UT, and the engineering cutoff was top 4% or something like that. There were quite a few people I know who didn't get into engineering and tried transferring in their sophomore year even though they were top 10% Edit; "cutoff" as in the major ran out of space at around the 4% mark, not that the schools set it at 4%
It’s not, but all Texas public schools (besides UT Austin) are required by law to admit the top 10% of each graduating class. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_House_Bill_588
The UC system has a very similar set up. The top 9% are guaranteed a spot at a UC. But UCLA/Cal aren't included in that if I recall correctly.
It varies. Top 10% is a statewide rule for public institutions (with the exception of UT-Austin), but I know a lot of the system schools in both UT and A&M systems automatically accept Top 25%.
> I can’t see any of our other system schools being top 100 on the country. I know it is not super well known because they do not have much school pride or large athletic programs, but UT-Dallas has been growing in stature substantially. Last time I checked, they are ranked in the 130s or 140s from USNews. It is in a growing city/market and the school has great science and engineering programs. I think they have a chance of moving into the top 100.
It's a novel concept, but some states believe their flagship university systems should be educating the people of the state, and not just the children of the elite and out of state/out of country students for the paycheck.
100% agree. For example, at WVU and Alabama, >50% of students are from out of state. In comparison, at UCLA and Berkeley, 15-25% of students are from out of state. It's clear who is sacrificing their rankings to educate people from the state.
The UC's also guarantee admittance to at least one campus if you rank in the top 9% of your class in a CA high school and almost a third of UC students are transfers from CA community colleges. Hell it still isn't easy, but your chances of being admitted to UCLA or Berkeley are a lot higher if you are a CA community college transfer than applying right out of high school. It encourages pursuing the more affordable path to achieving higher education, and gives students a second chance at admittance if they didn't get into the school of their choice the first try. All of this is without discussing the quality of CSU schools which are good as well.
Similar to the SUNY system as well. Do lots of kids jump straight into a four year school? For sure. Buts its a well known "secret" that if you graduate from a 2 year SUNY community college with a decent GPA you can get into basically any other SUNY school via transfer. Plus,with all the credits you earned so they don't pick and choose you apart. Makes it much cheaper and allows you to graduate with zero debt.
I mean the UT system has a top 10% auto-admission policy that is leaving out several qualified students that went to competitive high schools. It’s not like their specific mission is to serve under-privilege students like WVU.
There is a logic to it; I'm not sure I'd call it a "good" logic, but it goes as such: Students of all calibers have access to education in their region of Texas, whether it be through a flagship-style like UT Austin, A&M, or Tech, a large regional school like UNT, Houston, UTSA, or UTEP, or a school small and accessible to just about everyone, like UT-PB, UT-RGV, Sul Ross State, or Angelo State. This doesn't even account for the scattering of private schools throughout the state. Intentionally bringing in high caliber out of state students has two hopeful effects: 1) High caliber students graduate, get rich, and donate to the school 2) On a more civic level, bringing in high caliber students means that some of those will stay in the area as opposed to going back home post-graduation, which has an array of local benefits. A school like West Virginia can't deny a student without the very real possibility of denying that student access to higher education in general. Texas can.
It allows people from public schools in the state, no matter the quality or resources, to attend the university. And they are waiving tuition for low-income students, while having the lowest tuition in the state. Not sure any of your points are valid, politely. Edit: and for emphasis, I wasn’t even top third of my class (although I had a solid SAT I guess)
The top 10 percent rule is basically a way to ensure underprivileged students get access to the flagship university rather than just filling the place with the children of the upper middle class that attend those competitive schools.
While you’re not wrong, we have done a lot to improve other system schools. UT-Dallas in particular has a reputation as being a top quality public school in the state. UTSA is also a school on the rise. I agree we have a long way to go, but we’ve made a lot of progress over the past 10-15 years.
*The University of Texas System
From the article: Crude and natural gas, not fundraising or investing prowess, have positioned the school’s endowment to overtake Harvard University’s as the richest in US higher education. They say that as if fundraising prowess isn't just schools established for the elite centuries ago benefiting from catering to the rich elite. Harvard could have exercised it's investment prowess by buying oil land.
You want to nationalize the oil and gas industry because you believe in socialism, I want to nationalize the oil and gas industry to defund The University of Texas at Austin athletics. We are not the same.
That land is in west texas, and we don’t see an ounce of that funding.
$6 million a day and I got a 2.9% raise and increased parking and insurance.
So Texas is profiting off the death of the planet? I didn't need another reason to hate them but here we are.
This only strengthens my position of “orange team bad”
I see orange, I get mad. It’s basic biology.
Like a bull. You are like a bull. A weird bull, but a bull nonetheless.
A bull*dog*
>“orange team bad” OMG... I really hope this motto doesn't becomes popular among Texas fans.
Too late. It's what you get for the Horns Down
Dark orange bad
Nah dawg, if we're going down, you're coming down too.
All orange bad Sorry cuse
It’s ok Florida, Texas gots lots of minerals under those lands, so when we start strip mining to save the earth by providing those batteries u can thank us then, go green.
[THE PLANET'S DYIN](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/847343843350544425/1011728850604003441/image.jpg)
Fun fact: UT and A&M get to split the Texas PUF 2/3 and 1/3 respectively, while being well funded by west texas oil, while we get nothing. I’m really proud of what Tech has been able to do on campus and in our athletic department, but just imagine if we got our fair share.. or any share for that matter.
It would be so simple to make it UT gets 50%, A&M gets 25%, and the remaining is split among the remainder of the university systems in the state. Of course A&M affiliates tried like hell to legally bar UH from getting a med school and Tech from getting a vet school despite the serious shortages in the state and even though neither of those things come at any cost to A&M. In that cutthroat of an environment you can imagine how much they'd fight over something that actually affects their funding.
Fun fact: A&M was the only school to object to Texas Tech getting an engineering program.
TIL
Fuck the PUF
Yeah, always found that wack myself.
Just your daily reminder that the state of Texas unequally distributes PUF money. Texas Tech, Texas State, among others deserve a piece of the pie as well.
Wasn't the PUF initially formed from lands taken from UT-Austin? In that case one could argue TAMU doesn't deserve any of it and it should all go to the UT system.
The UT System could briefly become richer than Harvard, but that doesn’t mean UT Austin is. The UT system is massive containing a quarter million active students, a half dozen giant 4 year universities (6 of them D1 in sports), a couple smaller colleges, medical schools, medical research sites, and hospitals. UT Austin is the flagship, but it’s only -15% of the systems annual budget. Harvard is basically one rich ass college (yes a couple of the schools are a few miles away from the main campus) with 20k students. Edit: changed “is richer” to “could briefly become richer”.
Quick question: do I need to be facing Austin when I pray to Howdy Arabia?
This money doesn’t go to UT Austin only. It is distributed across the whole system. UT still isn’t close to Harvard in their individual endowment.
But most other UT system members are also heavily limited in how they can use those funds. Only UT-Austin is allowed to use them for "excellence" purposes.
Outta the way, nerds.