<p>
[quote]
The problem with Tech is that it will attract party-type students
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is a problem? The problem appears to be in your priorities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A&M was actually ranked higher than UT sometime in the 90s so I would say that both are on equal footing as far as brand name, with UT having an advantage with the financial sector due to McCombs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Equal footing as far as brand name?!?!? Bwahahahha. You're kidding right? LMAO! ROFL!!!! Funny guy. Not only does A&M have a weaker brand name, but you also have to live with the stigma of being an aggsy for the rest of your life.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The good students in Texas are already going to UT, A&M, or Rice and the good students that can afford it go to TCU or even SMU. You can't really expect Texas State or Texas Tech to really step up the plate to the same level as UT and A&M because there's just not a draw for exceptional students to go to those schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This differs from California how? The quality of the universities in California far exceed those in Texas. Texas plans to send more funding to some of these other schools (Tech, UTD, Texas State, UTSA etc) and are shooting to make at least one of them a Tier one institution. Aside from that, the top 10% rule which prevents many good students from goin to UT has had a positive effect on the other public universities in the state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you can't really compare Texas to California considering that California has a stronger white-collar background.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>EPIC FAIL</p>