4 ms·

OP would be easier to take seriously if it made even a token attempt to paint a balanced picture. It says "This is what system designers recognize as a pipelin

OP would be easier to take seriously if it made even a token attempt to paint a balanced picture. It says "This is what system designers recognize as a pipeline stall." without acknowledging that research universities have billions of dollars in buffers. It talks about talent pipeline without acknowledging that, for most students, colleges are mostly a gatekeeper (signaling device) and that, if the university system did not exist, the talents would still exist and mostly be developed to the same extent. It talks about the transfer from basic research to industry, without talking about how industry has benefited universities. It talks about the students who have gone on to do great things, without acknowledging that those students were pretty much forced by society to pay 5 or 6 figures to a top university, so that they could show an employer they are worth interviewing. It doesn't talk about how top universities were found (by USSC) to have discriminated against applicants on the basis of race. There's credible evidence that (i) they're still doing this, and (ii) they've also done it during hiring and promotions. IANAL, but AIUI it's illegal for the US government to fund institutions that discriminate based on race.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
epistasis 1y ago
> research universities have billions of dollars in buffers. Where is this myth coming from?
- advisedwang 1y ago
  Harvard has a $53 billion endowment. The right wing talking points assume that this is the same for every university. And that it's not earmarked. And that universities should destroy their long term stability so that billionaires can get a tax break (well, destroying universities future is a plus for them).
  - overfeed 1y ago
    Endowments aren't meant to be spent on operational expenses.
  - epistasis 1y ago
    Harvard is renowned for being an extreme outlier on endowments, too. Research universities typically have essentially zero endowment, and what they do have are not applicable to funding the research.
overfeed 1y ago
> without acknowledging that research universities have billions of dollars in buffers. Endowments are "buffers" the same way one's equity in the home they live in is a buffer. Liquidating either is a sign of distress and will lead to worse outcomes. So they are less of a buffer, and more of a last resort.
- rahimnathwani 1y ago
  In 2024, Harvard's endowment grew by about $5bn. During the same period, it received about $1bn in "Research: Federal and Non-Federal sponsored revenue". I'm not sure paying that $1bn from its endowment would be an existential threat.
  - epistasis 1y ago
    Interesting analogy. I suppose this is why I should be able to receive iPhones free from Apple too? Their value grew tremendously yet we as consumers of their phones still have to keep paying them!
  - tzs 1y ago
    And in some years it grows less, or even shrinks. The whole point of an endowment is that it is supposed to support the things that it was funded to support indefinitely. Most endowments, including Harvard's, already spend each year about as much as is they reasonably can while not putting its long term viability at risk. Also, endowments are not one big pool that can spend on whatever the university happens to want. They are comprised of thousands of separate pools created by donations that were donated on the condition they be used for specific things. E.g., some rich person leaves a bunch of money to a school to create the Milburn Pennybags Professorship of Antitrust. That money goes into its own pool in the endowment and its earnings will legally be restricted to funding that one professorship.
    - rahimnathwani 1y ago
      20% of Harvard's endowment is unrestricted. There's plenty of waste in Harvard's budget, which taxpayers subsidise both directly and indirectly.
LarsDu88 1y ago
> Mostly developed to the same extent This is mostly a software engineering forum, but no... most actually important industries and scientific work, unlike building webapps or video games, work the same way as software. John Doe straight of high school can go and make a photo sharing app with his laptop, but he is not going to be getting the same type of experience with non-trival research in his garage as at a research university. To actually get to the point where people had laptops required years of largely academic research and creating markets which were almost entirely academic. Just like with vaccination, people forget the time when a young person (who wasn't named Bill Gates) could get experience on an actual computer was at a university.
- rahimnathwani 1y ago
  You quoted me out of context. The full paragraph is below. I was specifically: - addressing OP's point about students and talent development - talking about 'most students' It talks about talent pipeline without acknowledging that, for most students, colleges are mostly a gatekeeper (signaling device) and that, if the university system did not exist, the talents would still exist and mostly be developed to the same extent. Today, it's rational for students to go to college because of the job application arms race. If universities did not exist, we could have a less costly (time and money) signaling mechanism, and talent development for the majority of students would be largely the same. (Folks claim that college teaches 'critical thinking' but there's weak, if any, empirical support for that claim.)
  - LarsDu88 1y ago
    I think this is an OK argument, but it assumes that in a magical world where universities ceased to exist, the alternative would actually be less costly. Remember, universities have fulfilled different societal roles over time. In the US they started off as Bible college, some of them gradually turned into quasi trade schools at the turn of the industrial revolution, and our idea of elite research universities really only reached full stride from Vannevar Bush's influence during WW2. Along they way, some of them developed lucrative sports programs completely unrelated to studying the Bible or building nuclear weapons. I would argue that if universities did not exist, they would be replaced by institutions that mostly do the same thing. The key question is whether the replacement institutions would cost as much. If there are the same sort of federal subsidies and incentives, the replacement institutions that replace the key signaling aspects of the modern research university would cost the same or more because the high cost is driven by the perceived market value of a degree and government loan programs. For the majority of non-elite students, the cost to get into such institutions for training, credentialling, exposure will be high. The real problem here is not universities but the fact that all majors are treated equally regardless of the expected economic outcome. An English major pays the same as an Engineering major despite drastically different ROI. This is an issue regardless of whether engineering and english departments are in the same institution or partitioned into separate non-university research institutions.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

epistasis 1y ago

> research universities have billions of dollars in buffers. Where is this myth coming from?

advisedwang 1y ago
Harvard has a $53 billion endowment. The right wing talking points assume that this is the same for every university. And that it's not earmarked. And that universities should destroy their long term stability so that billionaires can get a tax break (well, destroying universities future is a plus for them).
- overfeed 1y ago
  Endowments aren't meant to be spent on operational expenses.
- epistasis 1y ago
  Harvard is renowned for being an extreme outlier on endowments, too. Research universities typically have essentially zero endowment, and what they do have are not applicable to funding the research.

overfeed 1y ago

> without acknowledging that research universities have billions of dollars in buffers. Endowments are "buffers" the same way one's equity in the home they live in is a buffer. Liquidating either is a sign of distress and will lead to worse outcomes. So they are less of a buffer, and more of a last resort.

rahimnathwani 1y ago
In 2024, Harvard's endowment grew by about $5bn. During the same period, it received about $1bn in "Research: Federal and Non-Federal sponsored revenue". I'm not sure paying that $1bn from its endowment would be an existential threat.
- epistasis 1y ago
  Interesting analogy. I suppose this is why I should be able to receive iPhones free from Apple too? Their value grew tremendously yet we as consumers of their phones still have to keep paying them!
- tzs 1y ago
  And in some years it grows less, or even shrinks. The whole point of an endowment is that it is supposed to support the things that it was funded to support indefinitely. Most endowments, including Harvard's, already spend each year about as much as is they reasonably can while not putting its long term viability at risk. Also, endowments are not one big pool that can spend on whatever the university happens to want. They are comprised of thousands of separate pools created by donations that were donated on the condition they be used for specific things. E.g., some rich person leaves a bunch of money to a school to create the Milburn Pennybags Professorship of Antitrust. That money goes into its own pool in the endowment and its earnings will legally be restricted to funding that one professorship.
  - rahimnathwani 1y ago
    20% of Harvard's endowment is unrestricted. There's plenty of waste in Harvard's budget, which taxpayers subsidise both directly and indirectly.

LarsDu88 1y ago

> Mostly developed to the same extent This is mostly a software engineering forum, but no... most actually important industries and scientific work, unlike building webapps or video games, work the same way as software. John Doe straight of high school can go and make a photo sharing app with his laptop, but he is not going to be getting the same type of experience with non-trival research in his garage as at a research university. To actually get to the point where people had laptops required years of largely academic research and creating markets which were almost entirely academic. Just like with vaccination, people forget the time when a young person (who wasn't named Bill Gates) could get experience on an actual computer was at a university.

rahimnathwani 1y ago
You quoted me out of context. The full paragraph is below. I was specifically: - addressing OP's point about students and talent development - talking about 'most students' It talks about talent pipeline without acknowledging that, for most students, colleges are mostly a gatekeeper (signaling device) and that, if the university system did not exist, the talents would still exist and mostly be developed to the same extent. Today, it's rational for students to go to college because of the job application arms race. If universities did not exist, we could have a less costly (time and money) signaling mechanism, and talent development for the majority of students would be largely the same. (Folks claim that college teaches 'critical thinking' but there's weak, if any, empirical support for that claim.)
- LarsDu88 1y ago
  I think this is an OK argument, but it assumes that in a magical world where universities ceased to exist, the alternative would actually be less costly. Remember, universities have fulfilled different societal roles over time. In the US they started off as Bible college, some of them gradually turned into quasi trade schools at the turn of the industrial revolution, and our idea of elite research universities really only reached full stride from Vannevar Bush's influence during WW2. Along they way, some of them developed lucrative sports programs completely unrelated to studying the Bible or building nuclear weapons. I would argue that if universities did not exist, they would be replaced by institutions that mostly do the same thing. The key question is whether the replacement institutions would cost as much. If there are the same sort of federal subsidies and incentives, the replacement institutions that replace the key signaling aspects of the modern research university would cost the same or more because the high cost is driven by the perceived market value of a degree and government loan programs. For the majority of non-elite students, the cost to get into such institutions for training, credentialling, exposure will be high. The real problem here is not universities but the fact that all majors are treated equally regardless of the expected economic outcome. An English major pays the same as an Engineering major despite drastically different ROI. This is an issue regardless of whether engineering and english departments are in the same institution or partitioned into separate non-university research institutions.