5 ms·

Private universities can and do compete for the talent. In fact, my school added an extra fee for engineers to help pay for the higher professor salaries which

by mrep 9y ago

Private universities can and do compete for the talent. In fact, my school added an extra fee for engineers to help pay for the higher professor salaries which was easily beared because we all new what great pay we would get after college to pay off the loans. As for non private universities, well that's just what happens when socialists and capitalists compete for scarce resources.

kuschku 9y ago
> As for non private universities, well that's just what happens when socialists and capitalists compete for scarce resources. I'm going to try to interpret this as favorably as possible. The goal of the education system in a country is to provide everyone with a good education, so that a person's success in life is only dependent on their own actions, and not on what university or school their parents could afford. To do that, you have to be able to acquire and retain talent. This wasn't an issue until research started to move more and more into the private sector. When research is done in companies, it becomes hard to have professors that teach and research at the same time, as they do at universities. Even harder when wages become competitive.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  Companies have always done research. Most of computing was developed in the private sector, not by universities. Xerox PARC, IBM etc. There's no reason education has to be provided entirely by the state. In voucher schemes the state takes a slice of people's taxes and gives it back to them in the form of use-limited credits that can only be spent on e.g. education. Mandatory insurance schemes are similar in concept. You can have entirely private provision in such a scheme. Price controls result in shortages rather than everyone benefiting equally - this always happens, and in this case the price controls on academic pay are resulting in a shortage of academics.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Companies have only done research in the post-WWII world in any major way. Before that it was mostly independent researchers, or ones employed at places such as the Prussian Academy of Sciences. And in that model, research was open and public. In today's world, research is jept secret, never published, but a software patent is created based on the use case, so that the company can sue whoever copies it, but never has to publish either (software patents do not require publishing implementation detail, in contrast to real patents). If that is good is an entirely different question (and I think it's not). > There's no reason education has to be provided entirely by the state. In voucher schemes the state takes a slice of people's taxes and gives it back to them in the form of use-limited credits that can only be spent on e.g. education. That's basically what the US model already does, and it leads to ever growing tuition fees, and people far over their head in debt before they even leave university.
    - peoplewindow 9y ago
      Companies have only done research after WW2? Can you cite something for that, or is it your own view? My recollection is that the entire industrial revolution was based on innovations that came out of the private sector. Or, is the distinction you're making one of teams vs individuals? The size of teams needed to make new inventions has gone up over time I'm sure, but companies led by an inventor with other people working for them on developing the invention certainly predates WW2! That's basically what the US model already does, and it leads to ever growing tuition fees, and people far over their head in debt before they even leave university. That's because western society convinced itself that people had to have degrees or else they'd be useless and unsuccessful for life. In the UK universities are basically all taxpayer funded - the so-called student 'loans' are all from the government and aren't structured in the same way bank loans would be, so it's essentially public funded, and people end up in lots of debt there too.
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
>> In fact, my school added an extra fee for engineers to help pay for the higher professor salaries which was easily beared because we all new what great pay we would get after college to pay off the loans. Of course, those who couldn't "bear" (i.e. afford) it didn't take the course.

by mrep 9y ago

kuschku 9y ago

> As for non private universities, well that's just what happens when socialists and capitalists compete for scarce resources. I'm going to try to interpret this as favorably as possible. The goal of the education system in a country is to provide everyone with a good education, so that a person's success in life is only dependent on their own actions, and not on what university or school their parents could afford. To do that, you have to be able to acquire and retain talent. This wasn't an issue until research started to move more and more into the private sector. When research is done in companies, it becomes hard to have professors that teach and research at the same time, as they do at universities. Even harder when wages become competitive.

peoplewindow 9y ago
Companies have always done research. Most of computing was developed in the private sector, not by universities. Xerox PARC, IBM etc. There's no reason education has to be provided entirely by the state. In voucher schemes the state takes a slice of people's taxes and gives it back to them in the form of use-limited credits that can only be spent on e.g. education. Mandatory insurance schemes are similar in concept. You can have entirely private provision in such a scheme. Price controls result in shortages rather than everyone benefiting equally - this always happens, and in this case the price controls on academic pay are resulting in a shortage of academics.
- kuschku 9y ago
  Companies have only done research in the post-WWII world in any major way. Before that it was mostly independent researchers, or ones employed at places such as the Prussian Academy of Sciences. And in that model, research was open and public. In today's world, research is jept secret, never published, but a software patent is created based on the use case, so that the company can sue whoever copies it, but never has to publish either (software patents do not require publishing implementation detail, in contrast to real patents). If that is good is an entirely different question (and I think it's not). > There's no reason education has to be provided entirely by the state. In voucher schemes the state takes a slice of people's taxes and gives it back to them in the form of use-limited credits that can only be spent on e.g. education. That's basically what the US model already does, and it leads to ever growing tuition fees, and people far over their head in debt before they even leave university.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    Companies have only done research after WW2? Can you cite something for that, or is it your own view? My recollection is that the entire industrial revolution was based on innovations that came out of the private sector. Or, is the distinction you're making one of teams vs individuals? The size of teams needed to make new inventions has gone up over time I'm sure, but companies led by an inventor with other people working for them on developing the invention certainly predates WW2! That's basically what the US model already does, and it leads to ever growing tuition fees, and people far over their head in debt before they even leave university. That's because western society convinced itself that people had to have degrees or else they'd be useless and unsuccessful for life. In the UK universities are basically all taxpayer funded - the so-called student 'loans' are all from the government and aren't structured in the same way bank loans would be, so it's essentially public funded, and people end up in lots of debt there too.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

>> In fact, my school added an extra fee for engineers to help pay for the higher professor salaries which was easily beared because we all new what great pay we would get after college to pay off the loans. Of course, those who couldn't "bear" (i.e. afford) it didn't take the course.