Contact: Monty Jones, (512) 499-4363

Date: March 27, 2003

Speech by Mark G. Yudof, Chancellor

Working Together to Nurture Research Universities in the Metroplex

Presented to the Richardson Chamber of Commerce

(remarks as prepared)

Thank you.

It is a pleasure to join you this evening - a pleasure to see so many old friends from across the Metroplex, and to meet so many new ones.

I want to thank the Chamber for this opportunity to share my thoughts about higher education in the Metroplex and North Texas.

I am also delighted that State Rep. Fred Hill is with us tonight. The people of Richardson have in Fred Hill a great voice in Austin.

Allow me also to congratulate my friend Judge Lee Jackson on his appointment as chancellor of the University of North Texas System. It is very rewarding to have a colleague such as Lee - a quick study, a resourceful leader, and a great advocate for higher education.

I am happy to see that Spring has arrived in Richardson, as it has in Austin. I only wish the chilly state budget news out of Austin would warm up like the weather.

The revenue shortfall of almost $10 billion is certainly a staggering and blustery figure, difficult to grasp in human terms. Apart from the metaphorically bad budget weather and a little literal sleet, I enjoyed this winter. But, of course, I spent the last several winters in Minnesota, where I put more miles on my snow-blower than my car.

I want to focus tonight on a topic of crucial importance to Richardson and the rest of North Texas - the mission of U.T. System institutions in the Metroplex, and more specifically, how to nurture the development of U.T. Dallas, U.T. Arlington, and other institutions as research universities.

Research universities are the institutions that offer students the most advanced educational opportunities; attract outstanding faculty who are active in pushing back the frontiers of knowledge; and support economic development and job creation through collaborations with industry and the transfer of innovations and inventions to the marketplace.

The American research university itself is one of our nation's greatest inventions. Every state aspires to develop at least one institution of this kind, and some states have achieved wonders.

Texas has two public institutions clearly in this league: U.T. Austin and Texas A&M at College Station - as well as one private institution, Rice University.

I am here tonight to tell you that three are not enough. (But I suspect you knew that already.)

California, with a population almost 60% larger than Texas, has at least six public research universities and at least three more private ones, depending on the standards that you use. (1)

I am reminded of that great philosopher and social theorist, the Duchess of Windsor, who observed, "You can't be too thin or too rich."

In the U.T. System, we judge four institutions to be most capable of emerging as research universities. I list them here strictly in the order of geographical proximity to where I am standing tonight: U.T. Dallas, U.T. Arlington, U.T. San Antonio, and U.T. El Paso.

The U.T. System wants each of these institutions to grow and develop, so they have the high-quality graduate and undergraduate programs, the advanced laboratories and libraries, the industry collaborations, and the volume of research that would qualify them for status as research universities.

In recent weeks there has been considerable discussion, and not a little confusion, about whether one or another of these institutions has what might be called "most-favored status" in the U.T. System. I want to try to clarify that discussion tonight by elaborating on two basic points:

First, the U.T. System is in favor of each of these institutions advancing and achieving research university status as fast as it can, although each will inevitably emerge with that status in somewhat different ways and at a different pace. We will do everything we can to support this development.

Second, the status and development of these institutions will be largely shaped by campus and community factors, such as the ability to attract and retain outstanding faculty who can, in turn, attract research grants and great graduate students; the ability of the institution to align its expansion with federal research priorities; and the ability of the institution to attract significant private-sector support.

These are factors that cannot be controlled at will by administrators in Austin. They are in a sense organic to the history and nature of each institution and its community. They depend, above all, on campus leadership and community commitment.

The System can help facilitate developments; we can bring people together and encourage them; we can guide and be supportive. And we will do all these things.

Perhaps in another era, if the U.T. System were entrusted by the Legislature with many millions in new public resources, we could try to direct and determine the future of these campuses from a central command center. You know as well as I that we don't live in such a time.

We can expect, at best, modest increments in state financial support. Barring some totally unexpected state windfall, we must rely on extensive public-private partnerships, as well as being alert to opportunities for attracting more federal research dollars.

Let's begin with a realistic assessment of how far the U.T. institutions in the Metroplex have to go.

Despite everything I have said so far, there is no universal definition of a research university. A useful benchmark, however, would be those institutions that have at least $100 million in annual research spending. There are about 100 public and private universities in this category, from No. 1 Johns Hopkins University with about $900 million to No. 100 Auburn University with just a little less than $100 million. (2)

How far away are U.T. Dallas and U.T. Arlington? And how long might it take? I don't want to discourage any of you, but the answers are: a long way and more than a few years. In FY 2002, UTD conducted $27.4 million in research, and UTA did $21.1 million. (3)

These figures have dramatically increased in recent years, but each institution would need, at a minimum, to quadruple or quintuple its current research spending, mostly from the federal government, to break into the top 100. And we must keep in mind that everyone already on the list will also be striving to increase their research profile.

According to a study by the University of Florida, UTA ranks 241st in the nation in total research expenditures (176th among public institutions), and UTD ranks 224th overall and 162nd among the publics.

By the way, U.T. Southwestern Medical Center ranks 50th in the nation when compared with full-scale universities and other health-science centers, and U.T. Austin is 31st. I mention these institutions not just to show their relative rank, but to make three other points:

First, we will need efforts of heroic proportions to achieve our aspirations for UTD, UTA, and other developing institutions.

Second, a sustained record of private support - from corporations, professional firms, foundations, and individual philanthropists - has been essential to the progress of all System institutions.

And third, institutions like U.T. Austin and U.T. Southwestern are not only local resources, but also truly statewide institutions with national and international reputations. This is in the very nature of research universities and leading health science institutions.

Another measure by which research universities are often judged is the number of national academy members on the faculty. Here, again, we see a significant gap between Texas and other large states, as well as among Texas institutions.

As with research funding, California overachieves, with a total of 1,095 members of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. Texas has 193. Among California institutions, the Berkeley campus alone has 194 members of both academies - one more than the entire state of Texas.

Within Texas, U.T. Austin leads with 55 members of the two academies, followed by Rice with 18, A&M with 17, and U.T. Southwestern with 13. Everyone else is in single digits, if they have any at all. (4)

I am not trying to make anyone feel bad by comparison. My point is that if you are going to set forth on a journey, it is best to know how far you are from the destination and to have some guideposts along the way.

Given a realistic appraisal of where we stand today, is it at all realistic to think that Texas can develop new research universities, especially in a time of constrained state budgets?

I think the answer to that question is yes, but it will not be a simple or easy task. We cannot simply hang out a sign and proclaim that we have moved to a new level. We cannot move forward on the strength of press releases. Instead, it will require hard work, perseverance, imagination, some luck, and extensive public-private partnerships.

We have several examples of how significant progress can be made - if the resources, leadership, and commitment are present. In cases where large amounts of private support have been available, institutions such as Duke, Emory, and Vanderbilt have developed into research universities. In California, of course, a statewide higher education plan and sustained public resources have enabled several institutions to advance. And, in Texas, we have the example of Texas A&M which, over the past 30 years, has emerged as a nationally important research university thanks in large measure to its extraordinary leadership.

Our desire to see both U.T. System academic institutions in the Metroplex advance into the ranks of the nation's research universities is reinforced by the fact that these institutions aspire to this new status from positions of solid achievement.

Each has a distinguished record of service to its students and its community. Each has been growing in enrollment, as well as in the breadth of its academic programs. Each has a modern and expanding physical plant. Each has made significant progress in strengthening the quality of the faculty and increasing the volume of research. Each has had the benefit of outstanding presidential and administrative leadership. And each has cultivated fruitful partnerships with the private sector.

Speaking of outstanding administrative leadership, it is certainly exciting news - announced just two days ago -- that Bob Helms has accepted the position of dean of engineering at UTD. Many of you know Bob, of course, from his days at Texas Instruments, and now we are delighted that he is coming back to the Metroplex after a stint as CEO of International Sematech. I congratulate President Jenifer and everyone on the campus and in the community on this wonderful news.

While we remain dedicated to assisting the development of both Metroplex universities, it is my judgment that it is possible that U.T. Dallas may emerge as a full-fledged major research university somewhat more quickly.

I do not say this because I like U.T. Dallas better or because the U.T. System is engaged in trying to hold Arlington back. I say it simply because of a hard, realistic assessment of the particular circumstances surrounding UTD.

These include the higher admission requirements; the focused approach to excellence in academic programs in a limited number of disciplines; the magnificent record of philanthropy that has nurtured UTD from the beginning; the prospect for new, substantial enterprises likely to be located in the Dallas-Richardson area and other unique near-term opportunities; the private-public partnerships that are part of the very fabric of the institution; and the excellent prospect for significantly expanded private-sector support in the near future.

People in Dallas and Richardson will not be surprised when I focus on how much depends on private-sector support. Nor will the people of Arlington or Denton, or the alumni of Southern Methodist University, who also are making major investments. This is, after all, the region that has helped make U.T. Southwestern one of the world's premier health science institutions. And it is the region that has built U.T. Dallas almost from the ground up in the past 34 years.

Based on current trends, it appears that UTD is the most likely to get there next, but that certainly doesn't mean UTA is not headed in a similar direction.

Every university is a unique institution, with its own academic strengths and potential. It will be appropriate, therefore for institutions to pursue their advancement by somewhat different routes, even though these paths may often cross.

There is no single path that is best for every institution, and even among research universities, there is no single model that all of them embody.

I think it is most likely that UTD will aspire toward a public-sector version of MIT or Cal Tech, while UTA is more likely to follow the model of UCLA or UC San Diego -- but there can be no doubt that both will be transformed, in their own ways, in the coming years.

Now, having said all that, let me provide some details of a plan that the U.T. System is developing to help our institutions reach their goals.

The key to developing any type of higher education institution is the faculty. In many ways, the faculty are the ones who run a university. It may sound strange to hear that from an administrator, but it is true. The faculty do the critical work. Chancellors and presidents can make celestial promises, but they mean nothing without the committed and talented warm bodies to conduct the research, supervise the graduate students, and teach the undergraduate classes.

Faculty members set the curriculum, design classes, keep degree programs up to date, and they are, of course, on the front lines every day in carrying out the institution's educational mission. Rankings of research universities are almost totally dependent on the size and quality of the faculty - and, to almost the same degree, the quality of students. Equipment is important. Graduate fellowships are important. But these factors all may be viewed as facilitating the hiring, retention, and nurturing of first-class faculty. An excellence plan that does not focus primarily on quality faculty will fail.

And, of course, faculty members are the ones who attract research grants. We administrators can work day and night organizing and laying the groundwork, but there is no Nobel Prize for administration. Federal agencies have never awarded a research grant to an administrator. They award them to biochemists, nanotechnology experts, cardiologists, sociologists, and historians.

Just as the faculty attract research grants (sometimes $200,000 to $300,000 annually, year after year - far more than their salaries), they also attract outstanding graduate students. And finally, they help attract other high-quality faculty members. Great teachers and scholars join a university for many reasons, but one of the most important is the opportunity to work with colleagues who are doing important and exciting work. Critical mass is, well, critical!

For all the reasons I have mentioned, plans to enhance these institutions must begin with enlarging and strengthening the faculty. One of the ways we want do this is to create synergies with U.T. Southwestern through faculty and research partnerships.

You are aware that I have proposed the creation of 25 endowed faculty chairs as part of these new partnerships. With a relatively small amount of seed money from the state (to pay for basic salaries and benefits) plus substantial support from the private sector, these chairs would be designed as joint appointments between Southwestern and our academic campuses in the Metroplex. The initiative will concentrate on the biosciences and biotechnology, but we must maintain a broad view of the opportunities for various academic disciplines to participate in these burgeoning fields.

By the way, we are encouraging similar partnerships between U.T. San Antonio and the U.T. Health Science Center at San Antonio, and we hope for collaborations between U.T. El Paso and the medical programs that Texas Tech University seeks to expand in that city. We will also encourage similar synergies between U.T. Tyler and the U.T. Health Center at Tyler.

In every case, the health science institutions stand to gain from these partnerships as much as the academic institutions. Faculty recruiting is likely to benefit from the collaborative opportunities, as faculty members are attracted by the possibility of working with more colleagues in their own fields and across disciplines. For example, in the future a biochemist may be attracted to U.T. Southwestern partly because of the opportunity to work with other biochemists at UTD. A bio-statistician romanced by UTD might decide to join the faculty precisely because of the collaborative opportunities at Southwestern.

In some ways, these new collaborations between health science and academic institutions will serve to ameliorate a problem that dates to the late 19th century, when Texas voters decided to locate the state's "Main University" in Austin and the "Medical Branch" in Galveston. Ever since, Texas has separated the academic and medical disciplines. Now is the time to forge collaborations between the people and programs within these separate administrative structures, before history passes us by.

We don't yet have funding for the Metroplex initiative, but the U.T. System is moving forward with planning. On March 11, Dr. Teresa Sullivan, executive vice chancellor for academic affairs, met in Dallas with representatives of UTD, UTA, and U.T. Southwestern to begin discussion that will lay the groundwork for the joint academic appointments, research partnerships, and other continuing academic interchanges.

Our planning is also open to broader collaborations, so that all institutions of higher education in North Texas - including community colleges and universities outside the U.T. System - may find ways to pool resources for their common benefit and for the good of the region.

In this context, I want to comment on the importance of community colleges within the overall structure of higher education. We must never overlook the contributions of these institutions, educating about half of all students in Texas higher education, helping students begin a journey that can take them through the baccalaureate and graduate levels, providing invaluable technical training, and extending educational opportunity to thousands for whom a four-year university is not the best option.

The enhanced programs in the Metroplex will need to be closely aligned with research funding priorities of federal granting agencies, primarily the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Federal funding currently accounts for some 60 percent of research spending in the U.T. System, while private funding accounts for 26 percent, and the rest is from the state. That pattern is not likely to change much, except that the federal share may grow even larger.

The collaborations with Southwestern will be crucially important, but they are not by any means the only way to move forward. For example, UTD will continue to build on its historic relationship with the hundreds of advanced technology companies in the region - a concentration of industry that it helped develop. And we will certainly see continued enhancement of the university's major research initiatives in areas such as lithospheric studies and quantum electronics, as well as pioneering facilities such as the Callier Center for Communication Disorders and the Green Center for the Study of Science and Society, just to name a few centers of excellence.

In addition, UTD is participating, along with UTA, U.T. Austin and Rice University, in the Strategic Partnership for Research in Nanotechnology (known as SPRING), which is helping to position Texas as a center for education, research, and development in nanotechnology.

UTA, in turn, must also build on its own strengths.

Throughout the development toward research university status, we must be alert to as-yet-unforeseen opportunities. Our planning must remain open and flexible. Ten years ago, not very many of us were even aware of the field of nanotechnology. Ten years from now, there will be other emerging fields that we cannot even dream of today.

As all of these developments occur, both institutions will, of course, retain their commitment to undergraduate education and student services, as well as to other key priorities, such as the commitment to increasing diversity among students, faculty, and staff, and the commitment to public service and positive community relations. In particular, UTA, with the larger student body, will continue its brilliant success in providing access to all groups in the metropolitan area and providing a highly educated workforce for the Metroplex.

Now for the hard part. I must tell you that none of this can be achieved without money. Vision without resources will leave us only with unfulfilled dreams.

Until researchers at UTD come up with a perpetual motion machine, we are going to need to find external resources to underwrite the fulfillment of our shared vision.

And as we seek to assemble the necessary resources and sustain them over time, we must remember that this is not a zero-sum game. Texas cannot afford to build new research universities by neglecting the needs of the ones it already has.

Fortunately for all institutions, the federal government and private industry are committed to sponsoring the vast majority of research that is conducted in this country. That still leaves a need for increased and sustained resources for faculty and staff salaries, student scholarships, graduate fellowships, buildings and equipment, libraries, and, in many cases, for start-up funds to get things moving. Remember that a top-notch scientist may need $1 million for setting up a lab, and that constructing an advanced research facility can cost as much $600 a square foot.

We hope for continued legislative support for higher education's core mission, as well as relatively small but highly focused infusions of new state funds. Being realistic, however, no one should expect massive increases in state appropriations over the next decade.

The U.T. System will continue to invest money from the Permanent University Fund in major capital projects, although the capacity for the PUF to meet the capital needs across the System is being severely tested, not only by the magnitude of those needs but also, of course, by the downturn in markets. Fortunately, we know that we will see better days.

Some funding needs will be met by increases in student tuition and fees. But it is impossible to grow a research university by relying on payments from our students. We must maintain access and affordability, or we will betray our obligations as public institutions.

The remaining major source of support is the private sector. As I have said, industry, foundations, and individual philanthropists have a magnificent record of commitment to higher education in the Metroplex, and the history of community support and public-private partnerships in this region is the envy of the rest of Texas and most of the nation. The future of advanced higher education throughout the Metroplex depends on a major acceleration of these historic relationships.

We see, then, a web of relationships that will work together to foster the kind of development that we envision for UTD and UTA. Some of these relationships are most useful in getting the process started, while others serve to maintain the momentum.

I want to reiterate the principal connecting points within this web:

• Core support and targeted enhancement from the state, primarily to fund new faculty lines and start-up costs.
• Infrastructure support from the state and the U.T. System.
• Private sector philanthropy, with a primary emphasis on faculty chairs and graduate fellowships.
• Collaboration and coordination among institutions, particularly in biology, nanotechnology, digital technology, and various other fields of science and engineering.
• Recruitment and retention of outstanding faculty.
• Recruitment of outstanding graduate students.
• Alignment with state, local, and federal research priorities to increase research funding.
• An emphasis on creativity and entrepreneurship, discoveries and innovations, which often lead, in turn, to technology transfer and even the creation of new industries.
• Economic stimulation through the multiplier effect of research spending in the economy at-large.
• Job production and increased tax revenue.

The good news is that these relationships are already in place and are ready to be engaged in the full operation of this model of institutional development. Now we need to move all of them to new levels.

In addition, however, we could use some specific help from the state to speed the process along. I have three suggestions:

First, eliminate the practice of taking away from academic institutions 50% of the indirect cost reimbursements that come with federal research grants. This is, in effect, a tax on research and innovation, and it ought to abolished.

 

Second, extend to governing boards full authority over tuition and fees, a measure that would allow flexible rates to be set according to market conditions at different campuses and among academic programs.

 

And third, release higher education institutions from so much regulation. We must have the flexibility to manage our affairs if we are to be held accountable for outcomes - whether student or research success. Simply the amount of duplicative and needless reports that we must file every year is astounding. Did you know, for example, that Texas universities must file two payroll reports with two different state agencies, which use different software? I wish we could take some of the cost of over-regulation and apply it to enhancing academic programs.

I turn now to a final thought.

You may be aware of rivalries among Metroplex communities, especially as they seek to support nearby universities. Occasionally these rivalries touch on whether the U.T. System is being fair to all its institutions. Some community leaders have even said they might just move their university to another system or strike off on their own.

I believe there is an unassailable argument in favor of staying in the U.T. System, which provides its component institutions with services of the highest quality and the greatest cost-effectiveness. I could speak for another 30 minutes on that subject, but I will spare you.

My view is that we ought to spend less time trying to move the black boxes around, and more time focusing on what is inside them.

Regardless of that issue, I think higher education needs less rivalry and more cooperation, not only in this region but all across Texas. Every community and every higher education institution ought to take joy in the successes and advancements of others.

There can be no joy in watching the other guy's barn burn down. There is joy in watching Texas succeed as a state in higher education, fostering economic development in many communities, and empowering Texas families to achieve their personal dreams and aspirations. This can happen in this area if the Metroplex will pull together to help make it happen.

With that attitude, the success of all will surpass everyone's dreams.

Thank you very much.

Notes:

(1) Public members of the Association of American Universities: UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UCLA, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara. Private AAU members: Stanford, Cal Tech, USC. In addition: UC San Francisco is not a member of AAU but is 9th nationwide in research spending. <return to speech>

(2) "The Top American Research Universities," University of Florida <return to speech>

(3) Data from Coordinating Board reports, FY 2002. <return to speech>

(4) Data from the NAE and NAS websites. <return to speech>