It appears it will focus on large animals, so now the itt tech fat little girlfriends can get their stds treated on campus and keep going.

Reminds me of the sorority phi mu

Rattle rattle
Here come the cattle
Phi mooooooo

or athletes. So over the two year period itt tech lost their accreditation (wasn't that during the could not afford stamps time frame?), an itt tech degree was worth even less than normal- as if that were even possible! Also, wouldn't all athletes have been in ineligible for not taking at least 12 hours applicable to a degree?

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Good grief Andy, you have the biggest form of little dick syndrome I've ever seen from someone on here. Spending, literally YEARS "bragging" about MAYBE building a vet school? We bought a terrible law school and in THREE YEARS boatraced past Tech in the rankings despite them having one for 50 years. Do you really think this is going to end up with Tech competing with A&M? AT BEST, they're going to end up being considered the equivalent of North Texas' School of Osteopathic Medicine?

---

You guys tried so hard to keep Tech at bay. Sharp sure was pissed.

*****es.

---

Trust us. Tard doesn't need our help staying irrelevant.

---

Sharp didn't see it that way. Dude practically sacrificed a lamb to keep a second vet school away from Tech.

---

It's incredible how delusional you are. Sharp simply stated he thinks it's not needed because A&M already has everything in place. It's true. But nobody here or him are worried about it. Why would they be? It's not going to compete with A&M's.

What's funny is as stated above, the money that MIGHT get approved isn't enough to do anything. Way, way, WAY more money is required. What's clear is that for you, this is solely about trying to "beat" A&M at something, not what's actually best for the state.

---

Why isn't is best for the state? Because Sharp says so?

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Because a brand new school won't change the reality that the shortage is due to the fiscal and lifestyle realities of rural large animal medicine that aren't appealing to enough future vets

But it's tech desperately trying to get a "win" over A&M after we finally got our law school and have already passed TTU in just 3 years

---

Yup, that's all it is

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Good grief Andy, you have the biggest form of little dick syndrome I've ever seen from someone on here. Spending, literally YEARS "bragging" about MAYBE building a vet school? We bought a terrible law school and in THREE YEARS boatraced past Tech in the rankings despite them having one for 50 years. Do you really think this is going to end up with Tech competing with A&M? AT BEST, they're going to end up being considered the equivalent of North Texas' School of Osteopathic Medicine?

---

You guys tried so hard to keep Tech at bay. Sharp sure was pissed.

*****es.

---

Trust us. Tard doesn't need our help staying irrelevant.

---

Sharp didn't see it that way. Dude practically sacrificed a lamb to keep a second vet school away from Tech.

---

It's incredible how delusional you are. Sharp simply stated he thinks it's not needed because A&M already has everything in place. It's true. But nobody here or him are worried about it. Why would they be? It's not going to compete with A&M's.

What's funny is as stated above, the money that MIGHT get approved isn't enough to do anything. Way, way, WAY more money is required. What's clear is that for you, this is solely about trying to "beat" A&M at something, not what's actually best for the state.

---

Why isn't is best for the state? Because Sharp says so?

---

No, it's because MULTIPLE PEOPLE AND GOVERNING BODIES have said so.

There isn't a person on this board with a bigger case of little dick syndrome than you.

Andy Farmer said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Because a brand new school won't change the reality that the shortage is due to the fiscal and lifestyle realities of rural large animal medicine that aren't appealing to enough future vets

But it's tech desperately trying to get a "win" over A&M after we finally got our law school and have already passed TTU in just 3 years

---

Yup, that's all it is

---

That's EXACTLY what it is. And it's why your bull**** responses are what they are, just like this one. Can't offer anything substantive because you don't have anything.

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Good grief Andy, you have the biggest form of little dick syndrome I've ever seen from someone on here. Spending, literally YEARS "bragging" about MAYBE building a vet school? We bought a terrible law school and in THREE YEARS boatraced past Tech in the rankings despite them having one for 50 years. Do you really think this is going to end up with Tech competing with A&M? AT BEST, they're going to end up being considered the equivalent of North Texas' School of Osteopathic Medicine?

---

You guys tried so hard to keep Tech at bay. Sharp sure was pissed.

*****es.

---

Trust us. Tard doesn't need our help staying irrelevant.

---

Sharp didn't see it that way. Dude practically sacrificed a lamb to keep a second vet school away from Tech.

---

It's incredible how delusional you are. Sharp simply stated he thinks it's not needed because A&M already has everything in place. It's true. But nobody here or him are worried about it. Why would they be? It's not going to compete with A&M's.

What's funny is as stated above, the money that MIGHT get approved isn't enough to do anything. Way, way, WAY more money is required. What's clear is that for you, this is solely about trying to "beat" A&M at something, not what's actually best for the state.

---

Why isn't is best for the state? Because Sharp says so?

---

No, it's because MULTIPLE PEOPLE AND GOVERNING BODIES have said so.

There isn't a person on this board with a bigger case of little dick syndrome than you.

---

Yup. Tech said "Hey, Amarillo, lets raise $90mill for vet school so we can tell A&M to go **** itself, despite WTAMU being in your backyard. There is zero need for this vet school, just FYI."

Makes sense.

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Because a brand new school won't change the reality that the shortage is due to the fiscal and lifestyle realities of rural large animal medicine that aren't appealing to enough future vets

But it's tech desperately trying to get a "win" over A&M after we finally got our law school and have already passed TTU in just 3 years

---

Yup, that's all it is

---

That's EXACTLY what it is. And it's why your bull**** responses are what they are, just like this one. Can't offer anything substantive because you don't have anything.

---

Im sure you've already browsed the **** out of this site Mr. Bad Ass. Here is your substance.

www.ttuvetmed.com

Quote:

---

Im sure you've already browsed the **** out of this site Mr. Bad Ass. Here is your propaganda

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Im sure you've already browsed the **** out of this site Mr. Bad Ass. Here is your propaganda

---

---

Facts.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Im sure you've already browsed the **** out of this site Mr. Bad Ass. Here is your propaganda

---

---

Facts.

---

Oh, wow! What a deep argument. I was 100% wrong. A document put put by someone wanting the state to spend 100s of millions of dollars for their benefit is totally unbiased and accurate. Thanks for setting me straight!

---

And the argument against it is not?

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Because a brand new school won't change the reality that the shortage is due to the fiscal and lifestyle realities of rural large animal medicine that aren't appealing to enough future vets

But it's tech desperately trying to get a "win" over A&M after we finally got our law school and have already passed TTU in just 3 years

---

Yup, that's all it is

---

That's EXACTLY what it is. And it's why your bull**** responses are what they are, just like this one. Can't offer anything substantive because you don't have anything.

---

Im sure you've already browsed the **** out of this site Mr. Bad Ass. Here is your substance.

www.ttuvetmed.com

---

I didn't even know that site existed. I truly don't care if Texas Tech has a vet school if having that is best for Texas' taxpayers and citizens. I don't believe it is, and I think the huge weight of the evidence says that. But it's clear that you don't care about that, and the only thing that matters to you is "getting" A&M...even though it's not "getting" us at all because whatever Tech does won't be nearly as good as Texas A&M's Vet School. You know that, but don't care.

Your weird obsession with such a ridiculous topic is so revealing it's sad.

Get em Andy

Andy Farmer said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Im sure you've already browsed the **** out of this site Mr. Bad Ass. Here is your propaganda

---

---

Facts.

---

Oh, wow! What a deep argument. I was 100% wrong. A document put put by someone wanting the state to spend 100s of millions of dollars for their benefit is totally unbiased and accurate. Thanks for setting me straight!

---

And the argument against it is not?

---

The argument against it is that Texas A&M is in a much better financial position to handle any true need for this. A&M is also in a much better position from an knowledge and experience perspective because we've had one of the best vet schools in the country for decades.

What's so funny is how most of your "smack" around this centers on Sharp DARING to advocate the above positions (which are clearly correct) when his job is to advocate for his employer, your argument being that A&M MUST be "scared" of Tech getting a vet school if they're advocating against it. This, while Tech advocated against A&M getting a law school for 2 decades prior to A&M finally getting one. In that case, there was clearly a reason to be worried, and that's demonstrated by the fact that in 3 years A&M passed Tech in the law school rankings. I was on the Executive Committee for Tech Law during the lead up to this, and the concern was exactly this. To analogize, it was sort of like when TCU joined the Big 12. Now, there was an option closer to the state's population centers, and thus, kids don't need to head out to West Texas to play Big 12 football/attend a public law school. In both cases, it's choking off Tech's acquisition of talent, and hurting them. That isn't going to happen in the case of the vet school, if it does come to fruition.

However when we got our medical school the direction was graduating physicians to practice in small Texas communities.

I think TBAT large animal story took a page from our playbook.

Perhaps we should had copyrighted it?

Ironic, given your username, that you ignore the fact that A&M's founding and core mission has always been Agriculture.

TAMU's mission has evolved as the economy and needs of the state of Texas evolved.

Oh, so the Ag Experiment Station and Ag Extension Service are now under Tech?

Tech wants to compete with Okie State, Colorado State, LSU, etc. for vet students? Let 'em.

Texas A&M should be worried about competing with Michigan, UCLA, Georgia Tech, etc. for students.

Having said that, if the state is funding a second vet school in hope's of Tech attracting the rural vets, it's probably a mistake. Texas is almost 80% urban now.
Graduates are moving to the DFW, Austin, or Houston metros. West Texas is losing population because graduates dont want to live there, hence fewer rural vets.
Texas A&M is smart to focus on educating students to fill 21st century jobs, for example, at the new Facebook, Apple, and Amazon offices in Austin rather than in the dying towns in the panhandle.

That's been the argument since day one. Tech seems to think that having a school in Amarillo means the grads will magically no longer be subject to the laws of economics, and will live in Hereford, where their spouse can't get a decent job or their kids go to a decent school.

I love the Panhandle, but I didn't stay in my dying hometown when the kids hit school age.

Tech is making that argument, but any observer of the politics can see it's about money and trying to improving their stature. This probably won't help either. Texas A&M's vet school loses money as John Sharp has mentioned. Also, most elite research universities dont have vet schools, but a lot of Tier 3 schools do.

TAMU bball fan said:

---

Having said that, if the state is funding a second vet school in hope's of Tech attracting the rural vets, it's probably a mistake. Texas is almost 80% urban now.
Graduates are moving to the DFW, Austin, or Houston metros. West Texas is losing population because graduates dont want to live there, hence fewer rural vets.
Texas A&M is smart to focus on educating students to fill 21st century jobs, for example, at the new Facebook, Apple, and Amazon offices in Austin rather than in the dying towns in the panhandle.

---

Negative.

If you count "west Texas" as San Angelo, Ector County, Andrews, Seminole and such...its growth was on par with the rest of Texas from 2010 through 2017. The high plains was slower but still had growth between 2010 and 2017 at a rate of 4pct.

Does that count the oil field "workers" and families that move from place to place? Is there a building boom in upscale housing in most of the towns?

Bucketrunner said:

---

Does that count the oil field "workers" and families that move from place to place? Is there a building boom in upscale housing in most of the towns?

---

I have no idea. Thats from the Comptrollers office. General summary

Bucketrunner said:

---

Does that count the oil field "workers" and families that move from place to place? Is there a building boom in upscale housing in most of the towns?

---

I do recognize that most of the smaller towns are declining in pop but places like Amarillo and Lubbock (and Midland Odessa and the like) are absorbing those declines.

But your argument is that we need vets for the small towns, Why should you build a Vet School just to take care of the puppies and kitties in Amarillo and Lubbock?

The part that I have a hard time understanding...

Oh, so many go out of state for vet school and then come back to Texas to be vets with big debt from out of state tuition.

So you are saying that these future vets are willing to pay for their vet school education (through student loans) and come back so the state of Texas gets vets without the expense of paying for their vet education?

Why is Tech arguing that the state of Texas should pay for part of the vet education of vets that the state of Texas is currently getting for free?

It's one part empire building and one part tekkys odd obsession with A&M and will move heaven and earth to get any kind of victory over us in even in tiddlywinks

TAMU bball fan said:

---

Tech wants to compete with Okie State, Colorado State, LSU, etc. for vet students? Let 'em.

Texas A&M should be worried about competing with Michigan, UCLA, Georgia Tech, etc. for students.

---

What an odd post. Colorado State is one of the best vet schools in the country. And Michigan, UCLA and Georgia Tech don't have vet schools.

Andy Farmer said:

---

Bucketrunner said:

---

Does that count the oil field "workers" and families that move from place to place? Is there a building boom in upscale housing in most of the towns?

---

I do recognize that most of the smaller towns are declining in pop but places like Amarillo and Lubbock (and Midland Odessa and the like) are absorbing those declines.

---

That's not real growth, you doofus. It's migration to bigger cities, making them even bigger while towns around them die. You're arguing against your own original point but don't realize it.