There’s a disappointing editorial in the Houston Chronicle today by Dr. Jay Stein, former Executive Vice President at Baylor College of Medicine, calling for the University of Houston to be made into a tier one university. While I agree with the premise, I was disappointed because I expect any article subtitled “Here’s How” to outline something resembling a plan. Instead the article is a poorly organized collection of incomplete ideas, and it raises far more questions than it answers.
Dr. Stein says that “[W]e need a cooperative, statewide approach, not a political or competitive winner-take-all contest,” but he doesn’t go into detail about why the cooperative approach is preferable. If UH is “best positioned to advance to the next level” as he says, why not focus on making UH tier one rather than diluting our limited resources by trying to raise four universities–UH, Texas Tech, UT Dallas, and UT San Antonio–to that level?
Later he writes:
To ensure success, strategic planning and new sources of funding will be needed. In Dallas and San Antonio, Permanent University Fund dollars should be the major source of funding. I also believe the California model — combining the undergraduate school and a medical school on the same campus — deserves consideration in San Antonio.
In the case of Texas Tech and the University of Houston, two public schools not eligible for PUF money, an alliance of the two could obtain new funds for growth from the Texas Legislature. I also suggest incentives for funding be coupled with private philanthropy in both institutions.
Ok, he doesn’t elaborate at all on what kind of strategic planning is required. What’s the process for turning these schools into tier one? I understand that UTD and UTSA can get funding from the PUF, but why are TT and UH ineligible? If they are to be tier one schools, shouldn’t they also be able to receive money from the Permanent University Fund? Is this a limitation that can be changed? And why should the two form an alliance? What’s in it for either institution to split the proceeds of what they raise with the other?
Finally, Stein notes that “With the exception of Texas Tech’s Lubbock campus, none of the other Texas schools has a medical school integrated into the main campus. Yet, there are fine medical schools in Houston, Dallas and San Antonio. Something needs to be done to change this alignment.” Why is it important that medical schools be integrated into the main campus? I know that medical schools attract the bulk of federal grant dollars, so is he arguing that the overhead money obtained from grants could be distributed around the university to raise the status of other programs? Wouldn’t this weaken the medical programs? Stein also points out that 5 of California’s 9 tier one schools have associated medical schools. But California’s flagship medical school, UCSF, is a stand alone campus. So I’m unclear on what he thinks are the advantages and disadvantages of integrating the medical school with the main campus.
If you know the answer to any of my questions, please post a comment!
If you want to be notified the next time I write something, sign up for email alerts or subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for reading!
{ 0 comments… add one now }