Any unadorned claims that the University of Houston is a Tier One university are a distortion of the truth regarding its true status as an institution of higher learning. Several recent college rankings reflect the degree to which campus leaders have been overstating UH’s prominence.
There seems to be an intentional failure to distinguish UH’s credentials as a research university from its performance in all other aspects of academia. As a result, students are being misled about the quality of education they are receiving, and much focus has been taken away from the many deficiencies that the school desperately needs to address in order to genuinely achieve Tier One status. Failing to face this reality, UH’s attempts at self-promotion will continue to be undercut by the more publicized evaluations of others.
Early this year, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching placed UH in the esteemed category of a university with “very high research activity.” This is its highest level and is equated with being a Tier One research institution. While commendable, this recognition is very narrowly focused on just a single facet of a university’s makeup.
When referring to how it determines the status of a school, the Carnegie Foundation’s website states, “that the groups differ solely with respect to level of research activity, not quality or importance.”
In effect, it becomes contingent on money, with universities buying their rank with research grants and expenditures. Acceptance standards, student performance, graduate success and many other important attributes are excluded from this measure, making the label “Tier One research institution” only vaguely informative to future and current students. The assumption is made that a high level of research necessitates a strongly-performing university overall, but it is actually the corollary of that is true. That is to say, a top university must produce superlative research.
To add to this obfuscation, a sort of jingoistic propaganda operation has emerged that slyly omits the “research institution” modifier and deceptively declares that UH is simply “Tier One.” Only reluctantly does UH concede that the Carnegie classification is one of three measures used to fully distinguish an institution as Tier One, with the remaining two serving as better indicators of the University’s educational quality and commitment to student success.
Considering UH’s relatively lax acceptance standards, its less-than-stellar 46 percent six-year graduation rate and its steadily declining teacher evaluations, it is unlikely that the University’s status will improve in the near future.
Formal recognitions aside, the public is more inclined to dismiss any talk of UH being top tier due to its standing in several of the more prominent rankings of US universities and colleges.
Recently, the U.S. News & World Report released their annual list of the best national universities, and UH was distinctly missing. This omission was not due to any oversight. Rather, UH’s rank fell outside of the range that was published. For perspective, UT was 45th, Texas A&M was 58th, UT-Dallas was 143rd and Texas Tech was 160th. Not only was UH far removed from the two officially recognized Tier One universities in Texas, it placed below two of the state schools that are competing for a Tier One ranking of their own.
Such a dismal showing is not an anomaly; Forbes List of America’s Top Colleges listed UH as 543 out of 650 and has the University lagging behind six other Texas schools. Another list from the Washington Monthly places UH at 237, again below Texas A&M, ranked 15th, and UT, ranked 19th.
Obviously, there is a considerable degree of variability between these ranking systems, and it can be argued that many of the determining factors they rely on are largely subjective. However, the fact remains that UH consistently places far below the legitimate Tier One universities in both the state and the nation.
Understandably, UH is not going to advertise itself as a “Second Tier educational university,” but it should not inflate its credentials in order to sell itself. The University claims that it is making great strides towards improving its academic features, but for now it should save the “Tier One” banner until it has fully earned it.
Marc Anderson is a 3rd-year cell biology Ph.D. student and may be reached at [email protected].
Hey, biology major. Shut up. You opening your mouth is slowly lowering the "value" of your degree. Smart?
Wow, you really showed him. Perhaps if you responded to the article at hand instead of making inane comments, you might actually prove a point. What exactly do you disagree with? Obviously, your writing skills do not serve as an endorsement for UH's english department. It also appears that your reading skills are lacking, because it clealry states that the author is a Ph.D. student. He already has a bachelor's degree in biology. Perhaps there is some truth in suggesting that UH raises its admission standards.
Shut up, meatwhistle.
I'm guessing he got his undergrad somewhere else and feels the need to lord it over UH students who want to improve their school.
Food for thought: if we got access to the oil field money instead of UT and A&M I dare say we'd do even more with it than they have…
Actually, this is a wonderful article. Definitely one to print out in several copies for friends and arguments.
Given the author's opinion that UH is a third tier toilet, I have to question why, despite this opinion, he chose to attend UH.
Saying that we are not Tier One yet is not the same as calling UH a "third tier toilet." Anyway, I think the author made reference to a "second tier university." Just to help you out here, second is just below first, so we aren't the best but aren't all that bad either. I believe the author was saying that we have a lot of room for improvement. Do you honestly think that UH is the best it can be right now?
"Third Tier Toilet" is how students at prestigous law and business schools often refer to non-tier 1 schools/programs. And the author's article offers plenty of factual data to support the "toilet" assertion(Forbes list 543 out of 650 = bottom 20%).
But to answer your question on whether or not UH is the best it can be right now; I strongly believe that UH is both underrated and, at the same time, has significant room for improvement. I just think the author only presented an argument supporting the assertion that UH needs significant improvement and did so in such a way that paints a picture of a toilet institution.
And a quick note: Rice (which everyone agrees is a legit tier 1) isn't recognized by the Carnegie Foundation, for what its worth.
edit: strike the last quick note regarding Rice. I had heard that from a Rice administrator, but in researching further, it looks like they may have been mistaken.
I'm sorry but I must disagree w/ 90% of what was printed in this article. The UH is one of the greatest education institutions I have ever attended or heard about. I attend the Bauer College of Business and we rank high in the nation as well as in the world. In fact the entrepreneurship program is ranked #1 in the Nation. My own life has become significantly better since I have started at UH. I remember coming to Cougar Preview and seeing so much potential and opportunity. Whether UH is a Tier One Research University and will continue to make excellent achievements. I feel strongly that your article has downgraded the efforts of other students such as myself. A universities success is directly attributed to it's quality of students. Top employers don't come to UH only to humor us. They come here because they know we are of high quality. For whatever reason you felt you had a negative experience, I feel sorry for you. I know for a fact unquestionably that us the students is the university's top priority. So many services and programs and events and so much more are done for us, not profit. We have speakers from companies, other colleges, and leaders in the community give us support through their speeches. I know i'm not the only one who is proud to be a student at the University of Houston. I encourage you to research more ways to get involved on campus and realize the great opportunity you are missing out on.
No doubt about it, UH has some very excellent programs. Hotel Management, Creative Writing, and Business Entrepreneurship being the strong points. However, the university is severely lacking in other areas like math and sciences which is something that they should focus on fixing. Also, the math department here plain sucks, CASA is AWFUL. UH is a great school if you plan to live in Houston after graduation, but it doesn't have the kind of name brand recognition in the rest of the country.
Having lived/worked in multiple states outside of Texas, Houston has a better reputation outside the state than within. Your education is what you make of it, if you're relying on your school name to get you a job, you need to reconsider your school of choice and career path.
Houston the city or Houston the school??? Honestly, saying that it has a better reputation out of the state is the same as saying that I met Jesus at a bar. It's heresy without evidence.
The data however points to UH being less recognized outside the state as Newsweek has abolished the tier 2 system. So technically, UH is unranked.
"Acceptance standards, student performance, graduate success and many other important attributes are excluded from this measure"
"U.S. News & World Report released their annual list of the best national universities"
"(the ranking's)determining factors…. are largely subjective"
The rankings systems are completely subjective in terms of what factors to include and how to weight them. Your proposed factors listed in the first quote above are strongly and directly correlated to students ability levels before university. Thus using them is not necessarily telling us anything about the quality of education received at a university. Thus Havard, using those measures, gets a high ranking because incoming freshmen are already smart and driven, not necessarily because of any additional learning or inspiration that is actually occurring at Harvard*. This is a commonly cited problem with the USNWR rankings (and its ilk) in the education literature and is an example of omitted variables bias.
In as much as UH is striving to become a tier one university it seems to be increasing research, and increasing the caliber of incoming students. Both of these might be coming at the expense of UH's original (and in my opinion laudable) mission of being a working person's university, where any person with drive and ambition, and regardless of background, could come and receive a strong education for the betterment of themselves and their community.
*not trying to claim that no one is being educated at Harvard, just that your proposed measures would not be measuring education recieved at Harvard.
In addition to the new Carnegie classification, UH graduate programs rank as follows according to US news. Why did the author, a graduate student, selectively omit this data from his evaluation of UH? Sounds like the author chose the best data for casting UH in the worst light possible.
Healthcare Law – #6
Intellectual Property – #6
Social Work – #36
Pharmacy – #51
Law – #56
Earth Science – #63
Math – #68
Political Science – #72
Economics – #72
Engineering – #78
Chemistry – #83
English – #87
Psychology – #92
Fine Arts – #93
Business – #94
Public Affairs – #100
Physics – #102
Education – #104
History – #107
Speech-Language Pathology – #113
Computer Science – #118
Biological Science – #160
Source: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/bes…
Marc,
I realize this means nothing to you because you're still a student, but the "rating" of the school you attended means very little in the real world. While your UH education might not mean anything to you, I'm proud of the time I spent on campus. On the 1st and 15th when my paycheck direct deposits into my savings account with as many commas as are in your average paragraph, I don't say to myself, "Gee I wish I had gone to a Tier 1 research institution!" Quit being an academic snob and make the most of your time on campus.
Marc,
I realize this means nothing to you because you're still a student, but the "rating" of the school you attended means very little in the real world. While your UH education might not mean anything to you, I'm proud of the time I spent on campus. On the 1st and 15th when my paycheck direct deposits into my savings account with as many commas as are in your average paragraph, I don't say to myself, "Gee I wish I had gone to a Tier 1 research institution!" Quit being an academic snob and make the most of your time on campus.
Marc have you joined the alumni association? Have you given back to the University in any way? A quick FB search shows you are a 2004 UH alum as well. Have you gone to any football games? Are you a season ticket holder? What do you do to build up the University of Houston? Or do you only write opinion pieces to tear it down? UH admitted you to the PhD program, and you accepted. How many schools turned you down? You should just say "THANK YOU" to UH for giving you a future. You sound like a house guest who is staying over for free and criticizes the wine selection.
One of UH's biggest problems has to do with the perception that you are receiving an inferior education which is why we have so many apathetic alumni. When you start becoming part of the solution and not part of the problem, your opinion pieces might be worth reading.
I am proud of both of my UH degrees, you should be too.
Completely agree. The words make for nice billboards but they erode our credibility in the long run.
Unlikely that UH will improve? Do you have your blinders on? What reasoning do you have to think that UH is not improving on all fronts?
You're using US News & World Report as a more appropriate indicator of ranking? Do you not have a clue that this ranking system is completely ignored in academia? Do you not realize that the methodology is so flawed, that it's practically a joke? 22.5% of the score in USN&WR comes from what university presidents simply think about other schools. 5% comes from how much alumni give back. These are not adequate indicators of a quality education.
Your credibility is terrible. I do wish that you would really do some better research before you put out a hit piece on your own school.
You are missing the point. UH has an image problem, and the popular rankings do nothing to help this issue. It does not matter that the rankings are ignored by academia if the rest of the country thinks that school is lacking something. Public perception plays a very real part in elevating a university's status. The author was addressing the fact that UH is prematurely sounding victory. If you did your research you would find that two professionally recognized ranking organizations have standards that are above those that UH has. The Association of American Universities only lists 63 schools as top tier, so UH does have a long way to go before joining those ranks. Anyway, the author did not say that UH was not likely to improve, he said "it is unlikely that the University’s status will improve in the near future." This is correct, UH's status will not improve anytime soon. Your knee-jerk criticism reflects a lack of objectivity on your part. To borrow from your own writing, you appear to have blinders on.
Professionally recognized? You mean the same US News rankings that Clemson admittedly manipulated to jump from 38 to 22 nationally?
A presentation by Catherine Watt, the former institutional researcher and now a staff member at Clemson University, laid bare in a way that is usually left to the imagination the steps that Clemson has (rather brazenly) taken since 2001 to move from 38th to 22nd in U.S. News's ranking of public research universities. …
And to actual gasps from some members of the audience, Watt said that Clemson officials, in filling out the reputational survey form for presidents, rate "all programs other than Clemson below average," to make the university look better. "And I'm confident my president is not the only one who does that," Watt said. …"We have walked the fine line between illegal, unethical, and really interesting.”
My criticism isn't "knee-jerk", because I do my research. This article perpetuates the myth of credibility that these popular ranking systems enjoy. If you're going to use this these systems as indicators of actual achievement, then I'm going to call it out.
If you want to talk about membership to the AAU or what the TARU report says, I'm all for it. I think we certainly need to be working for this. Instead this article implicitly lauds the U.S. News & World Report ranking system.
I definitely acknowledge the fact that we are only officially 1/3 of the way toward the typical definition "Tier I" status. However, I think claiming that the other 2/3 of that status will not change any time soon is flat-out ignorant. Have you looked at the numbers? We are already placed in the top 26-50 public research universities on the TARU list. This is not a slouch rating in the least.
Another non-credibile point the author makes is that the Carnegie Foundation's classification is not as good an indicator of overall quality of education as the TARU report. The omission that no other public schools in Texas have achieved the Carnegie Foundation's classification outside of UT, TAMU, and UH is also pretty significant.
I think it's you and this article's author that is missing the big point here. This piece is essentially a big "gotcha" type of article on UH, and fails to see what is going on at this university relative to our peers.
Unlikely that UH will improve? Do you have your blinders on? What reasoning do you have to think that UH is not improving on all fronts?
You're using US News & World Report as a more appropriate indicator of ranking? Do you not have a clue that this ranking system is completely ignored in academia? Do you not realize that the methodology is so flawed, that it's practically a joke? 22.5% of the score in USN&WR comes from what university presidents simply think about other schools. 5% comes from how much alumni give back. These are not adequate indicators of a quality education.
Your credibility is terrible. I do wish that you would really do some better research before you put out a hit piece on your own school.
I agree with Bryden. " For whatever reason you felt you had a negative experience, I feel sorry for you. "
Just because you were scorned in some way doesn't mean this school isn't at the quality that it has been deemed.
For those complaining about the Math and Science department:
Maybe if more NSM alums cared about the school, perhaps people would donate money to help renovate and revitalize that department. The new laboratory is a step in the right direction. Look how fast other portions of the school have developed.
I'm sure the Author of this rant gives back in any way then complains about it…and it wouldn't surprised me if he attended another school for his undergrad.
Completely disagree. UH has made tremendous progress over the past decade in improving campus facilities, retaining freshman students, increasing alumni giving rates, accepting students with higher SAT scores and obtaining ranks in several key categories. I LOVED my time on campus and would not trade for another college experience. I’m sorry you feel this way and choose to ignore the progress UH has made over the past decade.
I find it amusing that you also reference USNews but fail to present all the facts. In your article you reference that Texas Tech is ranked higher by USNews. However, you forgot to include the following USNews graduate school rankings of UH.
US Grad Rankings Part 1
Healthcare Law
UH – #6
Tech – NR
Intellectual Property
UH – #6
Tech – NR
Social Work
UH – #36
Tech – NR
Pharmacy
UH – #51
Tech – NR
Law
UH – #56
Tech – #117
Earth Science
UH – #63
Tech – #89
Math
UH – #68
Tech – #104
Political Science
UH – #72
Tech – #86
Economics
UH – #72
Tech – NR
US Grad Rankings Part 2
Engineering
UH – #78
Tech – #95
Chemistry
UH – #83
Tech – #107
English
UH – #87
Tech – #120
Psychology
UH – #92
Tech – #132
Fine Arts
UH – #93
Tech – #119
Business
UH – #94
Tech – NR
Public Affairs
UH – #100
Tech – #124
Physics
UH – #102
Tech – #133
Education
UH – #104
Tech – #112
History
UH – #107
Tech – NR
Speech-Language Pathology
UH – #113
Tech – NR
Computer Science
UH – #118
Tech – #121
Biological Science
UH – #160
Tech – #195
First you must believe…….
You forgot this in you article:
USNEWS Grad Rankings Part 1
Healthcare Law
UH – #6
Tech – NR
Intellectual Property
UH – #6
Tech – NR
Social Work
UH – #36
Tech – NR
Pharmacy
UH – #51
Tech – NR
Law
UH – #56
Tech – #117
Earth Science
UH – #63
Tech – #89
Math
UH – #68
Tech – #104
Political Science
UH – #72
Tech – #86
Economics
UH – #72
Tech – NR
Engineering
UH – #78
Tech – #95
Chemistry
UH – #83
Tech – #107
I'm sorry. None of those are really impressive. Hit me up when the law school is in the T14 and when we get some top 10 undergraduate science programs. Like I said earilier, UH is a great school for those living and planning to work in the Houston area, and for those planning to pursue a career in medicine because of the TMC, but our public perception is virtually non existent in the rest of the country.
I applaud the school with it's marketing campaign and it has really helped improve our image in Houston, a lot of people used to call us "Cougar High". Now instead of building that new stadium, the garages, and the new UC, how about you use our money on our actual education?
please and thank you
You know that even UT -the best law school in the state- isn't actually T14 in the original sense, right? (Hence the "T14" moniker, explicitly designed tongue in cheek to exclude UT as 15th, though that may not be the case now.) What I am saying is that it's important to have realistic expectations.
I’m sure you can selectively pull things to make your point, but the thing that matters is “OVERALL” and Tech is ahead of UH is that ranking by a significant margin.
U.S. News rankings are more valid than Carnegie classifications? Really?
I cite you an article on the US News rankings from USA Today. Please read carefully what a former editor of the rankings states about the methology and validity:
Meanwhile, complaints continue about the magazine's annual rankings. Most critics argue that the criteria used by U.S. News to assess colleges are inappropriate, misleading and counterproductive to the already stressful college admissions process.
In the September issue of Washington Monthly, an article co- written by a former U.S. News staff member who oversaw the rankings for 18 months in the late 1990s says the guide "pays scant attention to measures of learning or good educational practice." Instead, the article says, "U.S. News' rankings primarily register a school's wealth, reputation and the achievement of the high school students it admits."
However flawed the methodology may be, it is still the fundamental college ranking system in the United States. Just type in best colleges in google and see which one is the first result.
I'm not sure how you see it as the fundamental ranking system. Seems there a quite a few out there and each of them different and just as subjective in methodology. Just because it is the first result inside Google, Yahoo, or Bing doesn't make it the best. You do realize you can pay to have your URL hit the top of the list, don't you? But even so, perception doesn't equate to reality. Those rankings are purely perception of one magazine and not academic reality. Since you like Googling, check out how Clemson and Florida gamed the rankings.
Robert,
U.S. News & World Report is HARDLY the fundamental college ranking system in the United States. Your method for trying to prove that is ridiculous too.
Brian and Troy,
Let's be real. Do you really believe that the average parent or student knows how effed up the methodology for rankings are? I don't think so. This is 21st century America, land of the lazy procrastinators. For them, simply typing best colleges on google and clicking the first result will tell them the answer.
also: Have you ever heard of a website called collegeconfidential.com?
You should look it up. A lot of the brightest kids (2000+ sats, perfect ecs and gpa) in the country go to that website for college admission advice, and the majority make their decision on schools based on rankings — mostly us news.
Robert, I think you need to pull your head out of the sand. Just because everyone in the club is doing meth doesn't make it healthy.
Yes, I'm very familiar with collegeconfidential.com. But don't deflect from the topic. A former editor of the rankings stated what everyone knows; the rankings are not worth they paper they are printed on. It is a selling tool for US News and nothing more. No value beyond that.
Since I have several relatives whose kids are in highschool (two have ivy league options), I can tell you not one of them even has a copy of the US News rankings, nor have they even mentioned them in any conversations. While you might characterize this generation as lazy, they are actually quite connected and resourceful when it comes to information. They don't call it "Generation (Y) Why" for no reason….they typically don't take things on face value without questioning it from several angles.
BTW Robert….since you brought up collegeconfidential.com, have you ever read their critique of the US News Rankings?
Overall, we caution our readers to think twice about letting a magazine decide what's important for all Americans when it comes to criteria for college selection. In the end, we've noticed that students and parents start out using the magazine rankings to inform themselves, but in the end these rankings have little overall value in the final selection process. Because of this, we give the U.S. News & World Report rankings a "B-" for making a big splash at first, with little real, residual value in the final analysis.
U.S. News rankings are more valid than Carnegie classifications? Really?
I cite you an article on the US News rankings from USA Today. Please read carefully what a former editor of the rankings states about the methology and validity:
Meanwhile, complaints continue about the magazine's annual rankings. Most critics argue that the criteria used by U.S. News to assess colleges are inappropriate, misleading and counterproductive to the already stressful college admissions process.
In the September issue of Washington Monthly, an article co- written by a former U.S. News staff member who oversaw the rankings for 18 months in the late 1990s says the guide "pays scant attention to measures of learning or good educational practice." Instead, the article says, "U.S. News' rankings primarily register a school's wealth, reputation and the achievement of the high school students it admits."
Saying the emporer has no clothes is hardly cause for stone-throwing by his oh-so-stunned audience. As a former owner of a successful non-profit, I can tell you first hand, fiscal competition among my NP peer group was fierce and constant, so we did what we had to (promote, exaggerate, etc) to get our head above the crowd and get noticed. THAT, kiddies, is how it works in the real world. UH, like all big educational institutions, will use every tool in its arsenal to get the local, state, and federal dollars it needs to keeps its doors open to students who wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in HELL at Rice, Princeton, or Yale or any of the big boy schools. It takes more than a mosquito bite to bring down a bear. If UH is guilty of anything, it guilty of what Spock was more incline to do — exaggerate, rather than outright lie.. But in a BIG Texas way. (Hey, we're in Texas, right?) Since its well-known that the rankings by pop magazines are shot full of subjective crap, (it's marketing, people!) its hard to argue that UH fails on that front. Anderson's piece was well-considered, if useless, but let's not beat up the messenger for his message. . Go Coogs!
You are the former owner of a successful non-profit??
Sorry! Non-profits (Not-for-Profits) do not ever have an owner! You were not an owner of a non-profit 501 (c) organization in the U.S.A..
Not-for-profit organizations are owned by the community and have a board of trustees.
But, (Hey, we're in Texas, right?)
Don't we all accentuate our positive traits and try to hide our "flaws"? What is wrong with UH hi-liting this aspect of tier one? Stop being a dufus and go do your HW….
Totally agree. I love this university but it's about time someone pointed out the fact that we are not truly Tier One; each time a UH representative makes the "We are Tier One!" claim, I have the urge to add that little asterisk "…in research".
The last two sentences of this article sum up quite eloquently a number of informed students' feelings on the matter :
"…[UH] should not inflate its credentials in order to sell itself…for now it should save the 'Tier One' banner until it had fully earned it"
If you don't like it here, then get out.
Your approach is ridiculous. Maybe you had parents that said, "son, if you dont like something, you shouldnt try to change it, you should just run from it, and get away." but thats not how I was raised. Luckily our Founding Fathers didnt think like you or we would still be a British colony.
When ol' Mac Anderson cited US News and World report's rankings, you knew the article was going to be tripe-filled sugary donut of absurdity. And sure enough, it was.
Why does the Daily Cougar allow anti-UH columnists to write in the UH student newspaper?
UH is clearly making strides towards becoming a top tier university. There has been a renewed focus on academics, research, and athletics. Of the three requisites for official Tier 1 status from the state of Texas, the University of Houston is by far the closest to it out of the universities seeking that designation. We have attained the coveted Carnegie research university status, and are making progress towards achieving the other two. Athletics is the "front porch" of a university, that gets people to notice the university who are unaffiliated with it. Our successes there help us attract better students and develop fans both in Houston and around the country.
The final goal is for there to be several top tier public schools in Texas, just as there are in California. But articles like this serve to undermine the progress that has been made. Part of being a "top tier" university is your academic reputation, which largely based on public perception. The point of this article is quite clear – to destroy that.
Marc Anderson, the same Marc Anderson who wrote a piece of crap article after Houston beat Texas Tech in a whale of a game in 2009, is back at it again. It's obvious he hates UH, hates the fact he is going to school here, hates Houston, hates the Daily Cougar, and hates kittens, puppies, butterflies, and America.
Oh, and by the way, there's a writer named "Mark Anderson" writing about how wonderful Rice football is, and comparing it to some Lubbock-based hellhole of a university's team on another site. Or there's this guy named Marc Anderson jocking everything about Texas Tech, but who apparently lives in Houston: http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/2609…. If either of these this is the same guy, we basically just let our rival come in, write a column in our newspaper punking us, then allowed him to do it again. Freaking solid job editors.
His past articles have been so poorly researched that people took the time to write even lengthier responses than his original articles, like here: http://www.edreformer.com/phi-slamma-jamma/.
I'm just disappointed in the leadership at the Daily Cougar more than anything. It's one thing to have a few jackasses on campus. It's another thing to give them a column in the Daily Cougar to denigrate our fine university. This needs to end. NOW.
When ol' Mac Anderson cited US News and World report's rankings, you knew the article was going to be tripe-filled sugary donut of absurdity. And sure enough, it was.
Why does the Daily Cougar allow anti-UH columnists to write in the UH student newspaper?
UH is clearly making strides towards becoming a top tier university. There has been a renewed focus on academics, research, and athletics. Of the three requisites for official Tier 1 status from the state of Texas, the University of Houston is by far the closest to it out of the universities seeking that designation. We have attained the coveted Carnegie research university status, and are making progress towards achieving the other two. Athletics is the "front porch" of a university, that gets people to notice the university who are unaffiliated with it. Our successes there help us attract better students and develop fans both in Houston and around the country.
The final goal is for there to be several top tier public schools in Texas, just as there are in California. But articles like this serve to undermine the progress that has been made. Part of being a "top tier" university is your academic reputation, which largely based on public perception. The point of this article is quite clear – to destroy that.
Marc Anderson, the same Marc Anderson who wrote a piece of crap article after Houston beat Texas Tech in a whale of a game in 2009, is back at it again. It's obvious he hates UH, hates the fact he is going to school here, hates Houston, hates the Daily Cougar, and hates kittens, puppies, butterflies, and America.
Oh, and by the way, there's a writer named "Mark Anderson" writing about how wonderful Rice football is, and comparing it to some Lubbock-based hellhole of a university's team on another site. Or there's this guy named Marc Anderson jocking everything about Texas Tech, but who apparently lives in Houston: http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/2609…. If either of these this is the same guy, we basically just let our rival come in, write a column in our newspaper punking us, then allowed him to do it again. Freaking solid job editors.
His past articles have been so poorly researched that people took the time to write even lengthier responses than his original articles, like here: http://www.edreformer.com/phi-slamma-jamma/.
I'm just disappointed in the leadership at the Daily Cougar more than anything. It's one thing to have a few jackasses on campus. It's another thing to give them a column in the Daily Cougar to denigrate our fine university. This needs to end. NOW.
I would expect anyone with a college degree (particularly a science PhD candidate) to have some understanding of reseach and the scientific method. Instead of using all data available, Mr. Anderson picks and chooses which resources to use to further his agenda. By referencing the US News Rankings (and discounting others), he is using the most discredited, controversial, and baseless methodology out there to assist in his attack on UH (a school that is helping him acheive his goals). It might have served him better to discuss his concerns with Dr. Khator prior to writting this poorly researched opinion piece. She is quite accessible.
Maybe he thought people at UH were too stupid to do our own research
Why do you hate America, Marc? Are you a communist? On a more serious note, if you don't like it here, go somewhere else like oh I don't know, Tech? Or UT, A&M, or Rice since those three are Tier 1 schools and we aren't.
Hating America has nothing to do with it, you loser. And European-style socialism might work better than the failure of a capitalistic society we're almost having right now.
Excellent comment and insight by "Unacceptable".
Too bad nearly everything he said was either speculative or an outright lie.
Me thinks you work for the university newspaper 0.o
Just be glad you don't get sued for libel. Make up some more lies and half-truths and maybe you'll get something a little less vitriolic.
It was meant as a sarcastic joke. Guess sarcasm does not travel well on the internet. lighten up.
That's right, let's just silence all critics. That's almost the definition of a fascist state. One of the fundamental rights of a democracy is being able to voice an opinion that others find objectionable. So, while you cite Marc for being un-American, you yourself are advocating for the destruction of our freedoms.
Overall, the administration puts a lot of emphasis on research, and pretty much blithely ignores large sections of its core mission: being a university for the working people of Houston.
The fact is that in the College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, the introductory courses are far from sufficient. They do not teach scientific research skills. Indeed, the introductory courses *for majors* are largely high school level material. If this is material that a major has to learn before arriving at the university, then that student should rightfully flunk out for not having paid attention in high school (or not taking the remedial course).
The availability of undergraduate research opportunities is far smaller than the university should have for its size. Indeed, at the senior level, all undergrads should be involved in some kind of research. I have two degrees from the University of Houston, and I did not spend one second doing research–because there weren't that many opportunities for an undergrad. But how many undergrads at UH have submitted any paper to a peer-reviewed journal? Yeah, I thought so.
Let's be honest: this comment section is full of people suffering Stockholm Syndrome and finding themselves caught in the sunk cost fallacy.
It is not disloyal to call attention to the university's faults. Indeed, the university needs to be exposed as wearing no clothes. Renu Khator needs to be deposed as Chancellor and President for squandering her time chasing research opportunities in exclusion to the university's core stated mission.
As an alumnus, I was promised something when I came to UH. The opportunities I was promised were not delivered. For that reason, I will not be making any donations to the university. Ever. If I should have kids, I will not allow them to attend UH.
UH has an overinflated image of itself. My record is impeccable in my support for the school, but let's be honest, UH just isn't a tier one university.
Good point about NSM. Oddly enough one of UH's biggest cheerleaders/proponents is a prof. in NSM who, ironically, would probably never be allowed to teach an intro class at a real Tier 1 school. (And I can say this having actually attended a real Tier 1 school in the past.)
LOL. I think he's a pretty good teacher though, probably the most enthusiastic one that I've ever had at this school. I'd like to know why he wouldn't be allowed in at a real tier 1 school?
I'm confused…you state that the University is putting too much emphasis on research, but then go on to complain that you didn't get enough/any research opportunities as an undergrad.
Fellow Cougars,
I know we may never be a Harvard, however have some loyalty. I know UH is not perfect but at least it's working on itself. We strongly NEED powerful and known organizations to call us good,great, perfect so we can get our goal of becoming a Tier One university. I had my own struggles with UH but needless to say It has made me stronger because I've learned lessons from them. And Dear James, as a nsm major, no one is going to ask you to see if you would like to do research, but It's your responsibility chase after professors to get involved. I talked to a biochem proferssor I got slapped in the face, but the second professor I talked to accepted me. Now I'm good as a genetic engineer and getting ready to present a poster. All I can say is the success of UH not only depends on the faculty and staff but on US, students, too!
Where's your Loyalty?
This directly relates to the quality of the student body and one of the fundamental problems of the school. UH has to accept lower scoring students because they desperately need the revenue with all the projects going on around school. Seriously, why do we need a new UC? How does that benefit our academics?
I'll agree that the whole 'Tier One' branding has deviated in some aspects from the Carnegie claim, and has appeared to make it seem like we've passed the true Tier One benchmarks, but Mr. Anderson seems totally condescending about UH in general.
Of all the other universities in Texas, we have a very great chance of reaching the Tier One designation sooner than the others. Also, it can't be helped the state funds the A&M and UT systems much higher with the Permanent University Fund, while we have to share the scrappy Higher Education Assistance Fund with every other university.
Blah, some of you people complain too much. They contribute nothing to making the University better and complain that it sucks. You act like there isn't a choice for you to make in which University you can attend. Yall probably order hamburger meat and expect the butcher to give you a filet mignon. You dont like what the University is trying to do by upgrading their facilities and changing the look at the U, then dont enroll at UH. Plain and simple, if you don't like it here at UH, go somewhere else for your undergrad, grad, doctorates, whatever. Also, just because you weren't accepted to UT or A&M and instead chose a "shitty" school like UH doesn't give you a free pass to make our school look bad when all President Khator is trying to do is make it a better school so that we can be even more proud of OUR school and our degrees once we graduate.
Well said Louis….
Doctoral research is something very different man, not trying to cause an argument, just saying you should check your facts.
In my experience, our students are solidly lacking basic reading and research skills that de-funded Texas public high schools couldn't give them, having to always teach to "No Child Left Behind" tests that tested nothing. For those of you complaining about only putting money toward research and not classroom education, you don't get it. The best teachers draw upon their fields of expertise in the classroom, and students get a world class education that they are often not up for receiving, because they lack basic comprehension skills that NO university in the world can provide. UH opens its doors to nearly every student, and this is a positive, democratic choice–but this also is what holds us back as a community. That students are not held accountable for their deficiencies and do not take their education and its opportunities as seriously as they could–I can't tell you how many students admit to enrolling in courses because it "fit into their schedule" or was compatible with the babysitter, the work schedule, the daycare, etc. I get it. This is the reality many UH students face, as working class students paying for school themselves. It saddens me that there isn't the means publicly to make it easier for them to be more attentive, critical and engaged learners. This is what Republicans do to education–they defund it. Stop blaming Renu Khator and voice your opinion–vote in the next state, local and national elections!
I did my undergrad here at UH and came back for law school. While UH does need some improvements, we've come a long way under Khator. I remember the Gogue years (heck, even the time under Rudley) and we're a different school than the one I went to back then. We're rightfully no longer Cougar High, and we're allowed to celebrate our progress towards Tier 1.
That said, the absolute best way to improve the school's reputation is to not spend all your time bashing it. Have some pride in the school you're getting your degree in.
I made a comment to a UT friend of mine about UH being Tier One and got laughed at. UT-D and Texas Tech have got to be really laughing about UH calling ourselves something that they don’t call themselves even though they are consistently ranked as better schools in virtually every publication.