Published on

Published in: Economy & Finance, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. Testimony before House Appropriations Committee Regarding National Research Universities David E. Daniel University of Texas at Dallas <ul><li>Why Do National Research Universities Matter? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Economic Impact on Texas </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Brain Drain to Other States </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What Will It Cost? </li></ul><ul><li>How to Move Forward? </li></ul>
  2. 2. Impact of Tier One Universities <ul><li>Example: MIT </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Alumni have founded more than 4,000 companies employing 1.1 million people and generating $232 billion in sales – roughly equal to the economic output of Houston or DFW! </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>One great, world-class university can have an economic impact on the order of one great city </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Imagine --- </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Boston (and Massachusetts) without MIT and Harvard </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The San Francisco Bay area (and California) without Stanford and UC Berkeley </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Austin (and Texas) without U.T. Austin </li></ul></ul>2 Source of data for MIT: BankBoston study available from
  3. 3. Texas Is Not Attracting Its Share of Investment Capital <ul><li>Texas has 8% of the U.S. population but only: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>5% of federal research and development (-$2.8 B per year) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>5% of venture capital investment in 2007 (-$0.9 B per year) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Summary: If Texas had its proportional share of federal R&D and venture capital investment, it would gain $3.7 B per year </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Venture capital accounts for 0.2% of GDP but 10% of U.S. jobs and 18% of U.S. business revenue </li></ul><ul><li>In 2006 and 2007, Austin had more venture capital investment than DFW, Houston, and San Antonio, combined </li></ul>Sources: Population Data: Population Reference Bureau, 2007 U.S. Population Data Sheet Federal R&D: 2004 expend., National Sci. Fdn.,, Venture Capital: Texas Distribution of VC Data: Mr. Ron Nash’s analysis of Dow Jones Venture Source data by area code, 2007 3
  4. 4. <ul><li>In Fall, 2006: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Texas exported 10,163 high school students to doctoral granting universities in other states </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Texas attracted 4,358 high school graduates from other states to doctoral-granting Texas universities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Texas had a net brain drain of 5,815 high school students to universities in other states in 2006 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The problem is getting worse – the loss increased by 54% from 2000 to 2006. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Example of positive impacts from talent importation: 15% of Rice University’s undergraduates hail from Harris County, but 33% of its alumni live there </li></ul>Texas Is Losing Talent to Other States Source: IPEDS Institutional Characteristics and Enrollment Reports, 2006 and 2000 Info. on Rice U. reported in speech by Richard Fisher, Sept. 24, 2007, as reported to him by Malcolm Gillis, former Rice U. President 4
  5. 5. Association of American Universities Source: 5
  6. 6. The10 Most Populous States 6 Sources: for population data; for AAU university information. Texas Has about Half the Average Number of Top Universities per Capita State Population (M) Number of AAU Universities Number of AAU Universities per 10 million People California 36.8 9 2.4 Texas 24.3 3 1.2 New York 19.5 7 3.6 Florida 18.3 1 0.5 Illinois 12.9 3 2.3 Pennsylvania 12.5 4 3.2 Ohio 11.5 2 1.7 Michigan 10.0 2 2.0 Georgia 9.7 2 2.1 North Carolina 9.2 2 2.2 Average (Excluding Texas) 2.2
  7. 7. How Many Top Research Universities Should Texas’ Two Largest Cities Have? 1 Based on economic productivity of metro. Statistical areas in 2005. Source: 7 Rank 1 City Number of AAU Universities AAU Universities 1 New York City 4 Columbia, NYU, Rutgers, Stony Brook 2 Los Angeles 4 USC, UCLA, Caltech, UC Irvine 3 Chicago 2 Northwestern, U. of Chicago 4 Washington DC 2 Johns Hopkins, U. of Maryland 5 Dallas-Fort Worth 0 6 Philadelphia 1 U. Pennsylvania 7 Houston 1 Rice 8 San Francisco 2 Stanford, UC Berkeley 9 Boston 3 Brandeis, Harvard, MIT 10 Atlanta 1 Emory Average (Excluding Texas) 2.4 DFW + Houston Should Total 5 AAU Universities, but Together They Have Only 1
  8. 8. Comparison of States Less Populous than the DFW Metroplex with Public AAU Universities 8 Sources: for population data on states and metro. statistical areas; for AAU university information. State Public AAU University Population Missouri U. of Missouri 5.9 M Maryland U. of Maryland 5.6 M Wisconsin U. of Wisconsin 5.6 M Minnesota U. of Minnesota 5.2 M Colorado U. of Colorado 4.9 M Oregon U. of Oregon 3.8 M Iowa U. of Iowa & Iowa State 3.0 M Kansas U. of Kansas 2.8 M Nebraska U. of Nebraska 1.8 M DFW Metroplex None 6.1 M Greater Houston None 5.6 M Greater San Antonio None 2.0 M
  9. 9. Cost to Elevate Emerging Research Universities to Major National Research Universities <ul><li>Cost: Ultimately $3,000 per FTE student per year </li></ul>9 Annual Cost: About $70 M per University per Year University FTE Students (Fall 2005) Eventual Cost per Year (for Current Enrollment) Houston 30,854 $93 M North Texas 27,789 $83 M Texas Tech 27,179 $82 M UT Arlington 20,474 $61 M UT Dallas 12,181 $37 M UT El Paso 15,146 $45 M UT San Antonio 21,962 $66 M AVERAGE 22,226 $67 M
  10. 10. Cost in Perspective <ul><li>Annual Cost to Elevate 3 Average Emerging Research Universities to National Research University (@ $3,000 per student per year): $70 M per year per university = $210 M per year </li></ul><ul><li> = 3 More National Research Universities </li></ul><ul><li>(Remember: If Texas had its proportional share of federal R&D and venture capital investment, it would gain $3.7 B per year) </li></ul><ul><li>Annual GR Appropriations to all Texas 4-Year Universities in 2008-2009 (Including TRB Debt Service): $2.19 B per year </li></ul><ul><li>Annual GR Appropriations to the 7 Emerging Research Universities in 2008-2009 (Including TRB Debt Service): $733 M per year </li></ul>10 Source for GR Data: Office of the Controller, base bill information.
  11. 11. How to Accomplish the Goal? <ul><li>Option # 1: Select One or More Universities to Advance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Advantage: Efficient – Focus the Resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disadvantages: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Politically Impossible? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The State Alone Can’t Accomplish This Alone – Need Community Support (Private Dollars) and Smart Choices by University Leaders </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Option #2: Let the Universities Compete for Resources </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Advantages: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Broad Support – All 7 Emerging Universities Have a Chance </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Rewards Performance and a Job Well Done </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provides Incentives for Leveraged Investments </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disadvantage: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Without Tough Performance Criteria, Money Spread Too Thin </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>11
  12. 12. Final Comments <ul><li>Very Significant Results Are Possible within a Few Years and Certainly within a Decade </li></ul><ul><li>Future growth will drive the demand for more national research universities even higher in the future </li></ul><ul><li>The Total Cost to Elevate 3 Universities Is $210 M per year requiring a 10% Increase in State Funding for 4-Year Universities and a 28% increase in Funding for Emerging Research Universities </li></ul><ul><li>The Investment Should Be Phased in Over Time , Perhaps in 3 to 5 Biennial Increments </li></ul><ul><li>The Return on Investment for Texas and Its Future Is Expected To Be Transformative </li></ul>12