Universities Upgrade from Bumblebee to Tier-One Prime

An editorial by the Austin American Statesman addresses Proposition 4 concerning the launching of seven research universities to tier-one status. The article hits closer to home since it addresses the surrounding universities in Texas which include UT Dallas, Arlington, El Paso, San Antonio, Texas Tech, the University of North Texas, and the University of Houston.

The article, called “A vote for Proposition 4 is a vote for Education and Economy,” obviously supports the proposition addressing the first major concern that readers might have which is financial backing for the program. The editorial board of the Austin American Statesman states that “money will come from an existing higher education fund, which has been dormant for several years…therefore, this is not a vote to raise taxes,” defeating the first doubt and fear that the Proposition will raise current tax rates. However, I find it doubtful that the raising of taxes in order to maintain the financial integrity of the program is not a possibility in the future because later in the article it is indicated that the cost of maintenance and running of these seven tier-one research facilities can run from 25 to 100 million dollars a year, each. So I can only assume that not raising taxes is only an introductory slogan lasting only until the higher education fund runs dry.

The author presents another reason why Texas might be in great need of more tier-one research facilities which he/she takes from a competitive point-of-view: we just don’t have as much as the other states do. The editorial board introduces a statement by James Huffines, the chairman of University of Texas System Board of Regents, stating that “Texas is at a competitive disadvantage when compared with California, with nine tier-one universities, and New York, with seven.” This does prove to be a logical argument taking into consideration the 10,000 high school graduates lost each year looking for doctoral-granting universities outside of Texas’ already limited slots for enrollment. Since Texas only has three tier-one research universities with UT Austin and Texas A&M being the two public research universities and Rice University being the third and final, yet private, research university, only 4,000 of the students are contained in Texas losing not only about two thirds of doctoral grantees but also the possibility and capability of attracting more, out-of-state doctoral candidates to Texas.

Lastly, the editorial board indicates that despite the heavy financial ramifications of tripling the amount of research universities the future does look bright with future prospects such as a plethora of jobs and about just as much in local and state tax revenues. Even though the full potential of the advantages don’t kick in until 2035 they seem to be worth the wait supposedly creating “more than 340,000 jobs and generate $1.3 billion in local tax revenue and $4.2 billion in state revenue a year” (Perryman). With projections like that, I think twenty five years is a reasonable timeframe for these kinds of benefits.

Overall, I thought that the articles argument proved to be very effective in presenting very powerful statistics. However, I’m still not completely convinced into erecting seven new research universities seeing as the maintenance and funding for these schools would be outstanding and would probably eventually turn into asking a little bit of charity from not only Texans but also those who go to those colleges. Maybe allowing the upgrade of two or three universities to tier-one level and seeing how those pan out over a decade would be the smartest decision in my opinion. This will definitely catch the eye of college students not only of current status but also of prospective. The passage of Proposition four will no doubt create a huge impact towards Texans and will definitely influence the future of its’ educational prestige.

Wait in Line; Death Will Follow

When an epidemic breaks loose and the whole world falls into chaos, the last thing that you need is a support system that doesn’t exist or is filled with so much shuffled processes that it might as well not. An extreme yet perfect example would be the black plague or the first discovery and cases of chicken pox. Bob Dunn’s editorial concerning the “Other White Meat Flu” pandemic called “Pandemic Report Card: We’re Dead” states that “only one lab was designated to conduct pandemic flu tests in a region including much more than just Houston – and more than 6 million people” and that “by April, more than 1,000 suspected pandemic flu patients were waiting…and waiting…and waiting for test results to find out what they had.”

First of all, it does not come to my understanding why only one lab was designated to more than six million people. One lab is not enough to research and provide enough evidence to not only contain the flu epidemic nonetheless find a cure for it. The article obviously emphasizes and shouts out for the 1,000 pandemic flu patients that were sitting idle waiting for results that would have proven only their death had the white meat flu been fatal. Dunn basically accentuates on the lack of concern of the CDC and the ineffectiveness of their Response Network. However, he acknowledges the difficulty in providing accurate progress and spread of the flu taking into consideration the acceleration of the pandemic’s spread. This argument proves logical except for the small fact that the CDC would be ignoring the lives of hundreds if not thousands of people.

Another fault in the CDC’s system was mentioned in the article concerning the distribution of the vaccine for the white meat flu and its efficiency, or lack thereof. Dunn bluntly states that “you can manufacture a King-Kong’s buttload of vaccine, but if you don’t distribute it until after most people have caught the disease, it might as well be so much iced tea.” His point in this argument proves to be irrefutable as he further indicates that the companies set to distributing the vaccines would not be able to handle a tripling in their normal production capacity.

I definitely agree with the author concerning the CDC’s negligence of the white meat flu pandemic and believe that the situation could have been handled in a more organized and professional manner. This not only further decreases the prestige of the organization but also allows the public to question their effectiveness, and therefore existence. Out of a scale of 10 I would have to rate Bob Dunn a 7. His score is not as high as it could have been because I feel that more of the CDC’s perspective could have been introduced and refuted therefore providing more credibility towards the article and reinforcing the argument. I really enjoyed how surprisingly informative the article was despite Dunn’s empathetic flare for the victims towards his audience, the people unaffected and unknown to the disease. Overall, the article proved effective but could have used more information from the opposing side allowing the reader to sway towards Dunn’s argument as opposed to being forced there.