3 ms·

You may as well ask why doesn't a genius out there topple the Trump administration or why did no one topple Stalin? It's unclear that power structures are so vu

You may as well ask why doesn't a genius out there topple the Trump administration or why did no one topple Stalin? It's unclear that power structures are so vulnerable to even the best-laid plans.

jerf 10y ago
You're allowed to set up a new University or place of learning/teaching. You aren't allowed (to a first approximation) to set up a different fully-sovereign government.
- xyzzy4 10y ago
  You're also allowed to own 100 Lamborghinis, but that doesn't make it feasible for most people.
  - jerf 10y ago
    You can get together with a few people and some investors and start a new place of learning that may someday become a university. You can't get together with a few friends and start a new government without a lot more hassle than that. The metaphor is unsalvagable.
    - BuckRogers 10y ago
      Only in your mind. The only difference is one is more difficult than another. It doesn't matter what you're "allowed" to do or not, the point is about any power structure exerting its will strip you of any ability to meaningfully oppose it.
      - jerf 10y ago
        "the point is about any power structure exerting its will strip you of any ability to meaningfully oppose it." Yes, but you can leave non-governmental power structures; the power of the Foot Veto is huge. By your logic, no new companies ever form because existing companies will strip you of your power to form them. Your logic predicts a society a great deal less flexible than the one we actually live in. The metaphor is unsalvageable. I suggest to you that it may be worth your time to meditate on this a bit more for your own health, which I mean fully literally. Your worldview quite easily leads to an excessively fatalistic feeling of a lack of control, which is a major factor in depression. Escaping non-governmental power structures may not be easy, but what worth doing in life is? It is well within the domain of possible.
        BuckRogers 10y ago
        I get the type of person you are. I'll just say it for you: you're right and I'm wrong. You even repeat yourself with your tangential point with no relevance to anything that you're replying to. Then proceed to shred the remainder of your credibility suggesting I go get help, in the fashion of a real clown. Good luck arguing with people online bud.
- FiatLuxDave 10y ago
  The largest barrier to entry to starting a new University is prestige. Accreditation is a challenge, but is doable. Gathering enough capital is a challenge, but is also doable. New institutions of higher education are started all the time. But when was the last time you saw a Harvard started? Imagine the following thought experiment: the entire faulty of Harvard goes off and starts a new University (call it Garvard). Now, obviously, the quality of education at this new school is going to be just as good as Harvard. But which school are parents going to want their children to go to: old Harvard, with a newly hired crop of top professors, or Garvard, with the original professors? I suspect that Garvard would get less applicants, and would likely have to charge less. This market force is why the cost of education is going up quickly while educator salaries are not rising as fast. In higher education right now, branding is more important than product.
  - nshelly 10y ago
    Probably the late 19th-century, when Stanford, MIT and Caltech were founded. They are all now competitors to Harvard. "Good" universities benefit from outsized tax-sheltered endowments, which can be spent on anything from rock climbing walls, employee perks and bonuses, restaurants, accommodation to land acquisition. Let's do another experiment, what if Harvard's $36 billion endowment was swapped with that of a less prestigious university in a major city, say Seattle University (SU). With now an almost $2 billion in annual expenditure, SU could hire some great faculty, and invest heavily in R&D. Meanwhile, Harvard would need to rely on huge tuition increases (via student loans), equaling $160k a year per student, as each student currently indirectly receives an additional $100k per year in endowment spending, and minimal financial aid. Maybe some wealthy alumni could try and prop it up, but I think it would take less than a generation for Harvard's prestige to sag, and SU's to soar.

You may as well ask why doesn't a genius out there topple the Trump administration or why did no one topple Stalin? It's unclear that power structures are so vulnerable to even the best-laid plans.

jerf 10y ago

You're allowed to set up a new University or place of learning/teaching. You aren't allowed (to a first approximation) to set up a different fully-sovereign government.

xyzzy4 10y ago
You're also allowed to own 100 Lamborghinis, but that doesn't make it feasible for most people.
- jerf 10y ago
  You can get together with a few people and some investors and start a new place of learning that may someday become a university. You can't get together with a few friends and start a new government without a lot more hassle than that. The metaphor is unsalvagable.
  - BuckRogers 10y ago
    Only in your mind. The only difference is one is more difficult than another. It doesn't matter what you're "allowed" to do or not, the point is about any power structure exerting its will strip you of any ability to meaningfully oppose it.
    - jerf 10y ago
      "the point is about any power structure exerting its will strip you of any ability to meaningfully oppose it." Yes, but you can leave non-governmental power structures; the power of the Foot Veto is huge. By your logic, no new companies ever form because existing companies will strip you of your power to form them. Your logic predicts a society a great deal less flexible than the one we actually live in. The metaphor is unsalvageable. I suggest to you that it may be worth your time to meditate on this a bit more for your own health, which I mean fully literally. Your worldview quite easily leads to an excessively fatalistic feeling of a lack of control, which is a major factor in depression. Escaping non-governmental power structures may not be easy, but what worth doing in life is? It is well within the domain of possible.
      - BuckRogers 10y ago
        I get the type of person you are. I'll just say it for you: you're right and I'm wrong. You even repeat yourself with your tangential point with no relevance to anything that you're replying to. Then proceed to shred the remainder of your credibility suggesting I go get help, in the fashion of a real clown. Good luck arguing with people online bud.
FiatLuxDave 10y ago
The largest barrier to entry to starting a new University is prestige. Accreditation is a challenge, but is doable. Gathering enough capital is a challenge, but is also doable. New institutions of higher education are started all the time. But when was the last time you saw a Harvard started? Imagine the following thought experiment: the entire faulty of Harvard goes off and starts a new University (call it Garvard). Now, obviously, the quality of education at this new school is going to be just as good as Harvard. But which school are parents going to want their children to go to: old Harvard, with a newly hired crop of top professors, or Garvard, with the original professors? I suspect that Garvard would get less applicants, and would likely have to charge less. This market force is why the cost of education is going up quickly while educator salaries are not rising as fast. In higher education right now, branding is more important than product.
- nshelly 10y ago
  Probably the late 19th-century, when Stanford, MIT and Caltech were founded. They are all now competitors to Harvard. "Good" universities benefit from outsized tax-sheltered endowments, which can be spent on anything from rock climbing walls, employee perks and bonuses, restaurants, accommodation to land acquisition. Let's do another experiment, what if Harvard's $36 billion endowment was swapped with that of a less prestigious university in a major city, say Seattle University (SU). With now an almost $2 billion in annual expenditure, SU could hire some great faculty, and invest heavily in R&D. Meanwhile, Harvard would need to rely on huge tuition increases (via student loans), equaling $160k a year per student, as each student currently indirectly receives an additional $100k per year in endowment spending, and minimal financial aid. Maybe some wealthy alumni could try and prop it up, but I think it would take less than a generation for Harvard's prestige to sag, and SU's to soar.