4 ms·

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 l

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.

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.