Well, I also think that Tech is more often talked about as the third flagship school. Although that doesn't mean that Texas State isn't also deserving.

Another thing would be that Tech is a Big 12 school, and while Texas State has an awesome football program, it's not division IA. As far as I know at least. Having a big football team helps Tech a LOT in the PR department.

Both Tech and State have their own University Systems as do A&M and UT. Actually Texas State's subsidiary institutions are more well-known that Tech's. To me at least.

Well, the Carnegie Institute for the Advancement of Teaching studies profiles of different types of institutions and ranks them according to their major focus. They rank according to many, many different categories but are well known for studying doctoral programs nationwide. Actually the "Research I" category seems to have been phased out in the 90s, and the methodology changed a bit, as discussed here and here.

The former "Research I" category is now called "Research Universities (very high research activity)". The other categories are for "high" activity and for generalized doctoral research Universities. It's based on funding awarded to research, number of doctoral programs, number of doctorates granted per year, and maybe some other measures. A list of the "very high" schools is here. The only Texas schools on the list are A&M, UT, and Rice. They list both Tech and UTEP in the "high" category. The list of all Texas schools in the "high" category is here. Texas State isn't in the "high" or the regular research category. (The Texas schools in the "Doctoral Research Universities" category are here.) My hunch is that Texas State may not have enough doctoral programs to qualify but I don't know that for sure.

The exact methodology for categorizing different institutions is available on a Excel file accessible from this page.

Hope that helps. These categories are mostly well-known to professors, Ph.D. students, foundations that grant research grants, etc. They don't mean one school is "better" than another (and they're certainly not trying to measure that) but really identify where the most extensive and diverse research is going on... I know one of my sorority sisters is in a doctoral program at UTEP... so you're not losing any love from me! :)

*I hope all those links point to the correct pages! Whew!

All of Texas State sports except football are currently IA.

Football will be IA in the next few years - I don't recall exactly because I HATE WHAT COLLEGE FOOTBALL HAS BECOME. But that's a different rant.

Texas State was selected as a Best Western College by U.S. News and World Report and a Best Buy by Princeton Review. I hate those ranking things, but if they are going to exist, I guess I should spread the word.

And let me state here that I believe the undergraduate experience is just as, if not more, important as the graduate programs. Too often the focus is on the graduates, and the undergrads get short-shrift. You reach more students through the undergraduate program, and one thing I LOVED about my education at Texas State was that I was taught by actual professors - only one graduate assistant (in Spanish). My classes were small, and I never felt like I was just a number. I really only had two large classes - physics and psychology.

On the football thing--only mentioned it because it could be a reason for the greater visibility of Texas Tech.

As I emphasized, the Carnegie categories are not meant to rank colleges but categorize them. They have a multitude of rankings based on undergraduate measures as well. I personally am with you on the undergrad experience thing. I went to a liberal arts college!

HOWEVER, when they (the Texas legislature & lt. gov) say they want to create a third flagship institution what they have actually been talking about is a research-focused institution:

http://media.www.dailytexanonline.co...-3191142.shtml

I'm guessing the real unstated goal here is to create another institution that would make the Carnegie "very high" list.

My position has always been that they should choose another campus--and I think Tech, Texas State, and UTEP are all great candidates--and get it ranked on the list (if that's indeed the goal) rather than starting completely from scratch. I'm not critiquing Texas State at all. At. All.

Red Turrets . . .
 

No worries - I do have a bit of a problem with those (not you - not you!) who don't appreciate the greatness which is Texas State (!). Not that I'm biased - just because my daughter is the third generation to go there . . . but my grandfathers went to SMU and SFA, so we're not TOTALLY Texas State oriented.

Now that Bobby Knight is gone from Texas Tech, wonder if they will get as much sport coverage . . .:rolleyes:

I saw the University of North Texas mentioned on the high list. That's another school making noise about moving it up a notch in the rankings. That is one of the reasons they are trying to expand their greek visibility (or so I hear) and moving from identifying themselves as a regional university to a more diverse school that attracts people from everywhere not just North Texas.

That's great!! I hope she's enjoying herself at UTEP and here in El Paso. You know I never appreciated UTEP (in fact we were trained in high school to call it Screw-TEP) until I went to school in California.

In California 90% of my classes were taught by lecturers who didn't have Ph.D. I know UTEP isn't super superior, but we are taught by actual professors, and we have some good ones. (So I know exactly what you mean SWTXBelle)

I'm really hoping that UTEP opening up for NPC expansion brings more emphasis into student life

Living in El Paso NPC expanison would be great. In Houston and Miami colleges were so involved in volunteer programs around the city. The doesn't happen in El Paso and I assume its strictly from the number of students involved.

Attached in an article that appeared Fri. in USA Today about how sucess the 10% program has been at UT and AM.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...gesathingortwo

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...14toptier.html

Saw that today and it made me think of this thread.

And it has the phrase "top tier." LOL.

surprised SMU wasnt named

Uh, SMU is not a public school so there is nothing that the Texas legislature could do to raise it to "top tier" status.

I wasn't even sure what the article meant by top tier, but it is clear that they're discussing what can be done for public schools, not private. If you're thinking private there are certainly many contenders - SMU, Baylor, TCU, etc.

The article mentioned three "top-tier" universities in Texas: University of Texas, Texas A&M and Rice.

Last time I checked, Rice was a private university. I think the previous poster was mentioning that while the article's writer *did* consider Rice top-tier, SMU was not considered in the same league.

I also tend to think that what they really meant by "top tier" in that article is "Research I University" and I don't think SMU would qualify in that regard as it is more of a liberal arts college - a prestigious one to be sure, but not a place where professors are primarily focused on research.

That's just my general impression from the article.

I agree with you there - as much I love SMU, it is not a Research I uni.

Isn't Rice in the Houston area? So the comment they made about Houston needing a "tier-one" university is invalid because they already have one.

If they are going to only pick one of the 'contenders' it should be in an area where one of the 3 isn't in (so not in Houston or the Austin/College Station area).

I kinda figured that they'd focus on Dallas. (Again i'm biased) but GOD FORBID they give a "top tier" status to somewhere outside of the DFW/Austin/Houston area.