Talk:University of Texas at Austin/Archive 3

Color Controversy

Hello, there was a recent edit that claimed the official colors of The University are "focal orange and pure white". I have been doing a little research into this. Here are some references. I find numbers 3, 4, 10, and 16 to be the most relevant:

1. The University of Texas Longhorn Band - "Traditions" page - claims "The University colors, orange and white, were officially adopted by the regents on May 10, 1900, after a student vote. As early as 1885, students had displayed orange and white ribbons on special occasions. Athletic teams later unofficially adopted burnt Orange. The official colors, as used in the university seal, are focal orange and pure white."
2. "We're Texas" Historical Exhibit - claims "orange and white" chosen as the official colors in 1900.
3. UT Web Page style guide - this page deals with nomenclature, logos, colors, etc. According to this site, the official colors are "burnt orange and white"
4. Another UT Web Page Style Guide - again claims "burnt orange and white" are the official colors
5. The University Seal in the Life Sciences Library - this library of course, is in the main building, aka The Tower - the orange seems closer to "focal orange" than "burnt orange"
6. TexasSports.com - Traditions - Burnt Orange and White - states that orange and white ribbons first appeared sported by baseball fans, that football started out with Gold and White, that after 1889 the university voted in "orange and white", that UT football coach Clyde Littlefield first used burnt orange in 1928, that this dye became too expensive during the depression, and that Darrell K. Royall brought back the burnt orange color in the early 1960's.
7. Texas Exes Celebrates 100 Years of The Seal of The Unviersity - colors are specified as "orange and white", orange in the image is fairly bright.
8. UT System Rules and Regulations - specifies offical colors for each school in the system are "orange and white" and that each school "may adopt one additional color to be used in connection with athletic and other activities of the institution when approved by the Board of Regents upon recommendation of the president of the institution, the appropriate Executive Vice Chancellor, and the Chancellor."
9. ou Style Guide - says to avoid use of "orange" in publications/designs because this color is used by OSU and by Texas. Several color swatches are shown (with hexadecimal codes) to avoid, none of them are named.
10. Another "University Image publication" - signed by then UT Austin President Larry Faulkner - states "Burnt orange and white are the official colors of the university. The distinctive burnt orange color employed by The University of Texas at Austin plays a major role in establishing our identity. Legend has it that the burnt orange color was chosen by football coach Darrell Royal, who thought that it would help his players conceal the football when they ran the triple option. This specific shade of orange, known as "Texas Orange" or "Burnt Orange" was made official on June 17,1967, when Chancellor Harry Ransom made a recommendation to the Board of Regents"
11. Texas Monthly Magazine (by subscription) or Google Cache - says "their choice did not become official until May 1900, after the board of regents tallied the votes of 1,111 students, faculty members, and alumni. Orange and white received 562 votes, orange and maroon followed with 310, royal blue alone received 203, and various other colors trailed with less than 15 votes each. Over the next few decades, many different shades of orange were used until the board of regents settled upon burnt orange—what they deemed "Texas Orange"—on June 17, 1967."
12. Some Resources in the historical collection of the UT library - if anyone on or near campus wants to go check them out.
13. Board of Regents Minutes - Sept 1966 - show reciept of a petition NOT to have Burnt Orange as offical color.
14. Board of Regents Minutes from 17 June 1967 - shows they POSTPONED action on changing the offical colors (p70 of these minutes as noted at bottom center of page - p1791 of the compillation as noted on the top right of the page) - {aside: one thing they did do it to order the tower observation deck to be opened on page 97/1820)
15. Board of Regents - 1980 - they adopt colors for athletics of UTSA of "orange, navy blue, and white" - the original motion specified "burnt orange", but the "burnt" was struck by ammendment. The exact shades are specified by reference to a Sherwin Williams system. They also note that "(Colors for athletics for other institutions of The University of Texas System were officially adopted at the Regents' meeting on July 31, 1970.)
16. Board of Regents, July 31, 1970 - approved seals, athletics colors, mascots, etc. The athletics colors for UT Austin are specified as "orange and white". The color in the seal for UT Austin is specified as "The official shade of orange is the one used on the north end of the outside of Texas Memorial Stadium, which color is shown on the color chart of Pittsburg Lavax Machinery Enamel, No. 23 - 81 Focal Orange. The official color is on file in the Permanent Minutes of the Board of Regents."
17. Austin American Statemen Article - stored at UT System web page - cites "burnt orange" Pantone Matching System 159 as the official color.

• My conclusions: From reference number 16, it seems that the official athletics colors of UT Austin, shocking as this may seem, are simply "orange and white". However, general usage, even that promoted by agents of The University acting in their official capacity, including the UT president himself (references 3, 4, and 10) specifies "burnt orange". This applies not only to athletics related material, but all materials published on behalf of the university. "Focal orange" seems to apply only to the seal.
• My recommendation: is to include in this article the following text: "The school's colors are officially Orange and White, with Burnt Orange also known as Texas Orange, being the specific shade of orange used." Johntex\^talk 23:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. If that's a "little research", I'd hate to see what happens when you do a lot. But, agree on your wording. Bellhalla 00:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No kidding! Ditto here, except without the British spelling <poke> · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like good wording to me. Good job on the research! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with all above. Thanks Johntex for your research and clearing this up! jareha 18:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Burnt Orange Wikipedian Brigade - (UT Wiki-Poject)

jareha has created a WikiProject for The University of Texas at Austin. Let's get busy! Thanks, jareha, for taking this step for us! Johntex\^talk 22:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Not good

This article definitely needs some more pictures. It's seriously lacking.--Zereshk 11:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to your pictures, Zereshk. --Grouse 11:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the message. --Christopherlin 18:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to see some more pictures, but I think if we are going to use the {{reqphoto}} tag, we should note here what sort of picture we are requesting. I'd like to see some photos taken from the top of the tower. I do have some in my collection, but they are from my time in student government, working to re-open the tour, so they are not the most recent, and they are not digital. What other photos would people like to see included? Johntex\^talk 18:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of the campus in general, so that the reader can form an image of what the UT campus looks like.--Zereshk 07:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I recently uploaded two pictures to Commons: commons:Image:UT Tower.jpg and commons:Image:UT tower with fountain, but they're also old (from 1989, when you couldn't even go up the tower), small, and non-digital. I'll let other people decide if they're better than nothing! Angr (talk • contribs) 08:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, I currently attend UT and can take pictures for the article. Any requests in particular? As for the tower observation deck, it always seems to be closed whenever we want to go up. (I have gone up once but didn't have a camera with me at the time). Alex 02:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hook it over here

Portal:University of Texas at Austin
and
Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin
We are creating these new resources to help improve Wikipedias coverage of all things UT. We can use your help!! Johntex\^talk 03:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Turing Scholars

The Turing Scholars entry should read "A computer sciences honors program" as it is not the only honors program within the CS Department. Also, the major and department are "computer sciences," not "computer science," which is a frequent mistake. source ChrisKennedy 03:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Be bold, ChrisKennedy.--Grouse 09:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The arch-rival of the new generation

I understand this subject has been discussed before; however, I feel it has not been adequately resolved. I graduated from UT in 2000, and the general consensus then was that the TX-OU rivalry had eclipsed the historical TX-TAMU rivalry. After graduation, almost every UT alumnus I encounter feels the same way. Furthermore, the current students I have spoken with feel the same way. While A&M might be the arch-rival of the 'Horns of the past, the younger generation of students and alumni place far more importance on athletic meetings with the Sooners. I mean no disrespect to the older generations of Longhorns, but times do change. I would also like to add that the shift in rival priority seems to have gained momentum ten years ago when UT and OU became part of the same conference.Bjstex 00:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Howdy Bjstex - welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for raising this issue on the talk page. Although I'm getting longer in the tooth than some of you young whippersnappers, I put together my reasoning for why atm is still the bigger rivalry:

Johntex's 12 Reasons Texas a&m is a bigger rival for The Unviersity of Texas than the sooners

1. UT is atm's oldest rivaly.
2. atm is UT's oldest rivaly.
3. The UT/atm fight songs explicitly mention the other team.
4. Texas and atm still close their regular seasons against each other.
5. When UT wins a football game, the top of the tower gets lit burnt orange - but when UT beats atm at football, the entire tower gets illuminated. This is not so for ou (quoting Katefan0 on this one).
6. atm has kidnapped and branded the UT mascot. I've never heard of ou kidnapping or branding Bevo or of UT capturing that little toy wagon.
7. Off the sports field, UT/atm are also in a very real competition for state funding.
8. They are also competing for high school students in a way that an out of state school is not. Although ou does come to Texas for recruiting, UT rarely bothers setting foot into that state to the north.
9. If you start-up EA Sports NCAA football, play as Texas, and select "Rivalry Game", the default comes up that you are playing against atm. The other options you can select are ou, Baylor, and Texas Tech. This is true in the 2004, 2005, and 2006 Xbox versions, which I have selflessly researched to contribute to this article.
10. If you Google "UT" +"biggest rival" you get more hits with "A&M" than "OU".
11. Texas vs ou has one game people really get excited about - the Red River Shootout. I would argue that is as much about the special nature of the game on a neutral field, the trappings of the state fair, etc. Texas vs atm has the year-long Lone Star Showdown. Texas and ou have not made any such agreement to extend the rivalry throughout the entire year.
12. A recent Sports Illustrated poll on What is the state of Texas' biggest sports rivalry? shows a majority of respondees say it is Texas vs Texas A&M (56%), Texas-Oklahoma (15%), Cowboys-Texans (7%) ... [1]

If you ask, "what football game has had higher ranked teams over the last few years", then yes, that would be the UT/ou game. But that is one sport over a few years. A rivaly is about much more than that. An encyclopedia article needs to talk the long-view. We already state in the article that the ou rivalry in football has gained prominence in recent years while saying that the atm rivalry is the biggest overall. I think that is the right line to maintain. Johntex\^talk 01:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well written, Johntex. I completely agree with you, and I'd like to note that I'm actually younger than the original poster (I spent my freshman and sophomore years at UT, and would have been class of 2006 if I didn't have to change majors and universities). It's also very possible that A&M will overtake OU again in football rivalry if a) the UT/OU game gets moved to a home/home series rather than neutral site, which is very possible and b) A&M becomes very competitive again, which is very possible. The bottom line in my mind is that the A&M rivalry runs much deeper in many sorts of ways, and less than a decade of OU football (on a National Championship competitive level) isn't enough to change that. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Johntex, especially about the long-term view of an encyclopedia. UT's sport focus for many, many years has been TAMU -- even the mascot name, Bevo dates to a 13-0 loss to A&M and an attempt to cover up a branding of the score on the longhorn's side. SteveHopson 02:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Steve, although the story about how Bevo got his name seems to be Apocryphal according to our article on Bevo. Johntex\^talk 02:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it appears that I will have a tough time convincing those interested in this subject that my viewpoint is correct, but I will respond to Johntex's argument. For most of his numbered reasons above, I would say that these facts exist because of the historical rivalry. I certainly concede that for the vast majority of both schools' histories, the UT-TAMU rivalry was king. Because of this long tradition, many manifestations of the rivalry were incorporated into both schools' traditions (e.g. fight songs). But that fact should not make the rise of a new top rivalry impossible. As to the kidnapping issue, the Aggies kidnapped Bevo many years ago in a very different era. If OU were to try to kidnap Bevo today (or if some Longhorns were to steal the little toy wagon), they would probably be sued for trespass and conversion as well as face criminal liability. It's sad, but true. I do see your point about taking the long-view; however, I would not be so quick to discount the overarching importance of the football rivalry. Texas is a football state, and Texans tend to get more riled up for football games than for any other. To many Texans, the football rivalry defines the overall rivalry. Both Texas and Oklahoma appear to have powerhouse programs that will endure for years to come. I just don't see Aggie football rising to that echelon any time soon. As far as other sports and academics are concerned, you just don't see the same level of passion. Again, it's sad, but true. As far as the EA Sports NCAA Football argument is concerned - touché. But perhaps this is more a result of having Pac-10-fan programmers who aren't aware of the dynamic nature of Texas' rivalries. In summary, I still maintain that I am correct and that time will eventually prove this fact. However, the lack of any support for my position forces me to concede defeat for the purposes of this Wikipedia article. Bjstex 20:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Texas/OU has clearly been the sexier rivalry over the last 5+ years since both schools have become national powers in a variety of sports. A&M, on the other hand, has generally been on a downslide in it's major sports, excepting the men's basketball team. It's only natural for current students at Texas to get more worked up about playing good OU teams and be less passionate about non-competitive Aggie teams. Anyway, the point i'm getting at is that claiming A&M or OU is the "biggest rival" is essentially a meaningless statement without some kind of context. OU is clearly the biggest rival today. A&M was the biggest rival for most of the 20th century. In other words, you're both right. Oh, one other thing: gig 'em, Ags.  ;) Ntmg05 02:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Endowment

According to U.S. News & World Report, the University's endowment is US$1,975,373,912. Where'd we get the US$4.3 billion number from? jareha ^(comments) 05:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• A UTIMCO press release from January 24, 2006 reports that the UT System endowment is $11.6 billion and "about half of the endowment funds are designated specifically for UT-Austin."
• According to a Dec. 2004 UTIMCO press release 45% of the UT System endowment goes to UT-Austin.
• Based on the $11.6 billion and 45% allocation, that would suggest UT-Austin's value is $5.22 billion. The previous year's value of $10.3 billion yields a UT-Austin value of $4.64 billion, which is close to the $4.3 billion originally listed in the article. - ChrisKennedy^(talk) 18:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to provide some sort of explanation. The UT funds are murky to me, so hopefully you understand it. Good luck on the MPA. Rkevins82 18:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, the Permanent University Fund, which is run by UTIMCO is really held in trust for the UT and A&M systems. Two-thirds of income (not capital) are designated for use by the UT System (which is called the Available University Fund), and I thought that 45 percent of that is designated for UT Austin. Surely UT has a substantial endowment in addition to the PUF (which it does not own but a percentage should probably be included in any accounting of endowment moneys). --Grouse 10:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The most recent edit references http://www.nacubo.org/x2321.xml as the source for UT's endowment value. In particular http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/FY05NESInstitutionsbyTotalAssets.pdf lists The University of Texas System's FY2005 endowment value as $11,610,997,000 or $11.61 billion. This endowment value is for the entire UT System, so it needs to be multiplied by 45% to determine the value of the capital dedicated to UT Austin. This yields $5,224,948,650 or $5.22 billion, which is what I determined it to be in my earlier post. I have never seen any other endowment monies referenced, but they could be added to this value if found. - ChrisKennedy^(talk) 01:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Chris, that can't be right. The UT System endowment does not equal the PUF, as it includes things like the long-term fund and other endowments. Therefore 45% of it is not dedicated to UT Austin. In fact I have no idea how much of it is dedicated to UT Austin, but unfortunately neither do you. This is really starting to be original research. It might be easier just to ask the UT public affairs office. --Grouse 08:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

All of the sources listed corrorobrate my figures - did you read them? If you find evidence to the contrary feel free to update the values. - ChrisKennedy^(talk) 08:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree that "all the sources listed corroborate your figures." I can't put much faith in a single sentence written by a DT reporter from a UTIMCO press release. I think the Texan reporter was confused. Certainly UT gets 45 percent of the AUF, and probably 0 percent of the Permanent Health Fund. So you are suggesting that they get the exact amount from the LTF to match out the 0 distribution from the PHF to make exactly 45 percent of 2/3 of UTIMCO's funds? I consider this implausible, and interpreting the figures and making your own calculations like this is original research. I am asking OPA for a statement. --Grouse 10:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't read the articles carefully enough, nor have you supplied any other source that disputed the figures listed on UTIMCO’s website. You are the one who is clearly confused. The value of the UT System endowment includes both the PUF and other private endowments - which would obviously be in the LTF. Multiplication is not original research. - ChrisKennedy^(talk) 15:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to call names here, Chris. There is at least one source that disputes your idea of how the endowment should be calculated--the USN&WR figure. The figure that 45 percent of the total UT System endowment belongs to UT is not in any UTIMCO statement despite the claim above, only a Daily Texan article. There is a regental policy[2] that at least 45 percent of the AUF must go to UT Austin, but I am skeptical that the same magic number applies to all UTIMCO funds overall as well. I think the Daily Texan reporter simply misunderstood this. UT public affairs has forwarded my request to the Director of Endowment Services at the Development Office so we will see how they calculate it. --Grouse 16:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly did I "call names"? - ChrisKennedy^(talk) 16:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that you called names, but it is always a good idea to try and stay civil. The only source we have gives the endowment's value at a bit under $2B. That, I believe, is from the Common Core of Data, published by USN&WR. CK - please explain what you think the $1.9B represents? Also, how comfortable are you with listing $5.2 when the calculation for last year was off by about 8%? Rkevins82 17:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Endowment message

I received the following e-mail from Mary Knight, Associate Vice President and Budget Director today (extra line spacing deleted): --Grouse 13:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The below figures are as of 8/31/05.

Calculation of UT Austin's portion of Permanent Univ Fund (PUF):

Total PUF value                                    $11.15B
Less 1/3 (to Texas A&M)                      (3.72)
                                                           ======
Subtl.                                                   $7.43
Times 45% (UT Austin portion)             $3.34B

PLUS

UT Austin private Endowments:             $ 2.2B
                                                            =======
TOTAL                                                 $5.54B

The $5.22B probably resulted from a calculation of the 6/30/05 PUF value
of $11.6B times 45%.  This was reported to Cambridge by the University
of Texas Investment Management Company.  But, it does not take in to
account that 1/3 of the PUF belongs to Texas A&M University and it also
does not include the UT Austin private endowments.  So, the above
calculation, though very close, is more correct.

Please let me know if you have additional questions.

Endowment documentation

I found this when doing some research on university endowments around the country, I think it should be included either here or on the UT System page, as it lists the UT system's total endowment as over $11b. I think what could be incorporated into this article is perhaps a statement indicating that "the University controls one of the largest financial endowments of any learning institution in America." I am unsure of where I could insert this though.

Here is the link: http://www.nacubo.org/documents/about/FY05NESInstitutionsbyTotalAssets.pdf

J. Charles Taylor 11:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The very point we have been discussing is that the University does not control the endowment. The system does. Rkevins82 14:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

that picture of the main building

That is a picture of the main building of Saint Edwards University in Austin, a completely different institute. I, as a student of Saint Edwards, am slightly offended. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.87 (talk • contribs)

To which image are you referring? — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No need for you to be offended, 66.82.9.87. Take a closer look at the photo. This was a building that stood in place of the current UT Tower and was torn down in 1934. Yes, there are architectural similarities to the main bldg at St Ed's, but they are entirely different structures. SteveHopson 12:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Rivalry section

I Removed "...including Ohio State University..." because it is not supported by either of the existing references. If you add it back, please add an additional reference that specifically mentions Ohio State considering UT to be a rival or vice versa. The two teams have played exactly once is 100+ years of football each. Was it a great game? Absolutely. Important to the 2005-2006 football season? Absolutely. I don't think it constitutes a rivalry. Johntex\^talk 18:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Public Ivy

I have removed the phrase "is sometimes referred to as" when discussing the University's role as a Public Ivy because I think it is unclear. Because Richard Moll explicitly included the University of Texas as one of the original eight public Ivies when coining the term, any discussion of the "public Ivies" would naturally include Texas, and thus it can be said with accuracy that Texas is considered to be a Public Ivy. J. Charles Taylor 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It is hard for me to consider the Public Ivy mention to be as notable as anything else before the TOC. It is never something I have heard discussed outside Wikipedia. I would probably move it to Rankings. But that is just my opinion, and not a strong one at that.--Grouse 21:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the new wording as it is more precise. I have a slight preference for this fact remaining in the intro, but I am not overly opposed to moving it somewhere else. Johntex\^talk 00:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Flagship

Nowhere in any official documentation will you find UT Austin classfied as a 'flagship' university. It is accurately categorized as a public school or a state university. 'Flagship' is an informal, subjective term used to describe the university's reputation and is therefore not even NPOV. I am changing the type to 'Public', which objectively describes the university's type. 08:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your definition of "flagship." M-W defines it in this context as "the finest, largest, or most important one of a series, network, or chain." When referring to the other universities of the University of Texas System, it is indisputable that UT Austin is the first and largest general academic institution in the UT System, and very few people would argue that it is not the most important or finest. It is commonly referred to as a flagship within the UT System administration and Board of Regents. See, e.g. [3]. I should additionally note that a Google search on Wikipedia for flagship university reveals many other uses in exactly this vein. --Grouse 09:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Centralized discussion on UT Tower shooting link

An editor wishes to add the following link to this and other articles:

"VOICES From The Tower"

I have asked them if we can have a centralized discussion about this link, rather than have the discussion across mutliple pages, and they have agreed to have the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Texas#Centralized_discussion_on_UT_Tower_shooting_link. Please visit that discussion if you wish to participate. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Texas A&M as mentioned in History Section

Dear t-sip wikipedians,
In fear of starting some kind of rivalry edit-war, I try not to mess with your page at all.
However, when Texas A&M was founded it was the Agricultural & Mechanical College of Texas. Therefore, I have made slight edits so that your history paragraph is factually correct in reference to the name.
I left that little "first class university," THE Univ. of Texas. in place, though I feel it is worded in a fashion to lend a bit of POV. It's understandable since you are writing about your alma mater and I've come to expect t.u. to be a bit uppity, but must congratulate you on a well written article on the whole. Thanks and Gig'Em. --Long, Tall Texan 02:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)