4 ms·

> In one full swing, this business model would reduce unemployment, national debt, and poverty. But you're also creating an incentive for the universities to in

by eshvk 14y ago

> In one full swing, this business model would reduce unemployment, national debt, and poverty. But you're also creating an incentive for the universities to innovate. I can just see something like A/B Testing being set up. "Okay. So are you telling me students who take the general courses do not earn more than the student's who don't? Get rid of these courses!" Let me try to answer this seriously: So, the problem with your idea is that Universities are not just workshops but they are also places where research is done, where people work day in day out cranking out experiments for a pittance. If you want to optimize for a single cost function: Money, you will find that these people lose the training that got them into science on the first place. They sure as hell wouldn't go into research because the pay for Grad. Student or a Professor sucks. Also, all we would be trying to mint out in this case would be business men and lawyers. Guess what? Tech does not pay as well as you would think it would. Also, there is a special place for classrooms and Universities irrespective of this "free distribution of information" which AFAIK has been existing since the 16th century (books): Mentorship. One of the greatest experiences that going to a world class school can give you is the ability to interact with people who have significantly shit tons of experience than you, have the wisdom and depth of knowledge in the subject.

mvleming 14y ago
I've never thought about the research component. I'll have to think about this and do some research. Do you know if universities make more money from research labs? Don't the professors and students make money if their research has commercial viability? Mentorship is one of those pieces that the universities would innovate with. I totally agree with you on mentorship and I definitely think it comtributes to one's success. As a result, if universities implemented a mentorship program, they would make more money because their students would end up making more money. And regarding the business men and lawyers and technology does not pay well, I just had another comment saying the universities would only churn out software engineers. Regardless of that, it's supply and demand anyways that corrects this.
- eshvk 14y ago
  > I've never thought about the research component. I'll have to think about this and do some research. Do you know if universities make more money from research labs? Don't the professors and students make money if their research has commercial viability? Most universities take large slices out of research grants. There are some research projects that have been commercially used. However, the process of making something commercially viable is... not easy: Apply for patents, think about designing a product, setting up a company etc. All this stuff takes a ton of time and takes people way out of the stuff they want to do: Research. > Mentorship is one of those pieces that the universities would innovate with. I totally agree with you on mentorship and I definitely think it comtributes to one's success. As a result, if universities implemented a mentorship program, they would make more money because their students would end up making more money. It is rather more subtle than that: So very few Professors get into the field wanting to teach and mentor people (I am using the term mentor here more as it should be used between a Professor and an undergrad student who happens to take his class rather than a Professor and a person he is advising). Most of them get into Universities with research as their primary objective and teaching as a requirements. However, in a good school which hires excellent candidates eventually ensures that they also turn out to be excellent mentors. I worry that an organization that is using money as the optimization function will find it very hard to build something as sophisticated, it is easier for them to higher guidance counsellors who sit all day in a room. > And regarding the business men and lawyers and technology does not pay well, I just had another comment saying the universities would only churn out software engineers. Regardless of that, it's supply and demand anyways that corrects this. I would find both of these abhorrent: Society is just not about money alone. There are people out there who make way lower on the cost function of money but still have jobs that require learning how to think in a certain manner and that requires going to school.

by eshvk 14y ago

mvleming 14y ago

I've never thought about the research component. I'll have to think about this and do some research. Do you know if universities make more money from research labs? Don't the professors and students make money if their research has commercial viability? Mentorship is one of those pieces that the universities would innovate with. I totally agree with you on mentorship and I definitely think it comtributes to one's success. As a result, if universities implemented a mentorship program, they would make more money because their students would end up making more money. And regarding the business men and lawyers and technology does not pay well, I just had another comment saying the universities would only churn out software engineers. Regardless of that, it's supply and demand anyways that corrects this.

eshvk 14y ago
> I've never thought about the research component. I'll have to think about this and do some research. Do you know if universities make more money from research labs? Don't the professors and students make money if their research has commercial viability? Most universities take large slices out of research grants. There are some research projects that have been commercially used. However, the process of making something commercially viable is... not easy: Apply for patents, think about designing a product, setting up a company etc. All this stuff takes a ton of time and takes people way out of the stuff they want to do: Research. > Mentorship is one of those pieces that the universities would innovate with. I totally agree with you on mentorship and I definitely think it comtributes to one's success. As a result, if universities implemented a mentorship program, they would make more money because their students would end up making more money. It is rather more subtle than that: So very few Professors get into the field wanting to teach and mentor people (I am using the term mentor here more as it should be used between a Professor and an undergrad student who happens to take his class rather than a Professor and a person he is advising). Most of them get into Universities with research as their primary objective and teaching as a requirements. However, in a good school which hires excellent candidates eventually ensures that they also turn out to be excellent mentors. I worry that an organization that is using money as the optimization function will find it very hard to build something as sophisticated, it is easier for them to higher guidance counsellors who sit all day in a room. > And regarding the business men and lawyers and technology does not pay well, I just had another comment saying the universities would only churn out software engineers. Regardless of that, it's supply and demand anyways that corrects this. I would find both of these abhorrent: Society is just not about money alone. There are people out there who make way lower on the cost function of money but still have jobs that require learning how to think in a certain manner and that requires going to school.