> From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education. At least at some points in the past, this was a significant fundi

> From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education. At least at some points in the past, this was a significant funding source for universities. (In the US, not sure about outside of it.) The number of engineering schools founded by American industrialists is probably not coincidental, either. That companies no longer feel the need to invest in universities in order to ensure a steady supply of workers suggests one of two things: (1) either the planning horizon of private companies has contracted to such an extent that they are no longer willing to make such a long-term investment, or (2) they believe they can just hire sufficiently skilled graduates without investing in the "supply chain" that produces them. Argument 1 is largely a financial question, because it hinges on the long term discount rate; Argument 2 is essentially political, in that it assumes the ability to hire graduates from a large, slack labor pool outside of its immediate community in which it might otherwise invest. My guess is that both of these have played a role in declining private-sector funding of educational institutions vs. the early 20th century and prior.