3 ms·

You are aware that not all research leads to concrete, patentable ideas, right?

by tjgq 13y ago

genwin 13y ago
Yes, just like not all startups are successful for VCs. The revenue generated by some of the research can pay for all the research, and patents are just one of many revenue sources for them. Johns Hopkins has an endowment of $2.5 billion. MIT has $10 billion. They can afford to pay for foreigners' educations without getting taxpayers involved. Taxpayers are involved so they can have even more money in the bank.
- tjgq 13y ago
  > Yes, just like not all startups are successful for VCs. A dangerous analogy, because the sole criterion of success for a startup is to be financially successful, whereas there are lots of research ideas that cannot be translated into a profitable business, yet are still worthwhile to pursue. Think fundamental results in maths and physics. I am all for universities to have sources of revenue other than taxpayer money. But I fear that making those the only sources of revenue (you did defend that in your original post) will instill a climate where researchers are prevented from pursuing research topics that cannot possibly bring in any money for their universities. And this is not just about "knowledge for knowledge's sake", either. Think about, say, quantum mechanics or complex analysis. Would anyone have paid for the early research in these areas with the expectation of financial returns? And yet, here they are today at the basis of a number of highly profitable industries.
  - genwin 13y ago
    I'm fine with spending public money for research done by domestic students or those foreign students who have stated their intention to stay in the US and have their path to citizenship approved in advance. For other students the university should pay for it out of their endowment. In other words the public's money should be spent judiciously, not frivolously.
    - tjgq 13y ago
      I think you misunderstand what a PhD student is. A PhD candidate is supposed to generate real science, not just train to become someone who does. By that same logic, a senior researcher (American citizen or not) should not be paid by taxpayer money unless she were to promise not to leave the US in the future.
      - genwin 13y ago
        Not by that logic. It's a safe bet that American citizens who haven't made such a promise are less likely to leave the US than are foreign PhD students who've stated their intention to stay in the US and have been cleared for a path to citizenship before they arrive, but of course are free to leave. I support public funding for both cases. All I want is better odds they'll stay, based on the assumption that there is more supply of worthy foreign students who'd stay if they could, than demand for them. There's no good reason we shouldn't maximize the benefit to the US taxpayer, by cherry-picking the supply and paving the way to their citizenship in advance. That the PhD students do real science (i.e. a job) isn't a good enough reason to leave taxpayer money on the table. If some foreign student is so much a wunderkind that they'll do a $million in work for their $250K outlay, but plans to leave the US, that could be an exception.

You are aware that not all research leads to concrete, patentable ideas, right?

by tjgq 13y ago

You are aware that not all research leads to concrete, patentable ideas, right?

Yes, just like not all startups are successful for VCs. The revenue generated by some of the research can pay for all the research, and patents are just one of many revenue sources for them. Johns Hopkins has an endowment of $2.5 billion. MIT has $10 billion. They can afford to pay for foreigners' educations without getting taxpayers involved. Taxpayers are involved so they can have even more money in the bank.

tjgq 13y ago
> Yes, just like not all startups are successful for VCs. A dangerous analogy, because the sole criterion of success for a startup is to be financially successful, whereas there are lots of research ideas that cannot be translated into a profitable business, yet are still worthwhile to pursue. Think fundamental results in maths and physics. I am all for universities to have sources of revenue other than taxpayer money. But I fear that making those the only sources of revenue (you did defend that in your original post) will instill a climate where researchers are prevented from pursuing research topics that cannot possibly bring in any money for their universities. And this is not just about "knowledge for knowledge's sake", either. Think about, say, quantum mechanics or complex analysis. Would anyone have paid for the early research in these areas with the expectation of financial returns? And yet, here they are today at the basis of a number of highly profitable industries.
- genwin 13y ago
  I'm fine with spending public money for research done by domestic students or those foreign students who have stated their intention to stay in the US and have their path to citizenship approved in advance. For other students the university should pay for it out of their endowment. In other words the public's money should be spent judiciously, not frivolously.
  - tjgq 13y ago
    I think you misunderstand what a PhD student is. A PhD candidate is supposed to generate real science, not just train to become someone who does. By that same logic, a senior researcher (American citizen or not) should not be paid by taxpayer money unless she were to promise not to leave the US in the future.
    - genwin 13y ago
      Not by that logic. It's a safe bet that American citizens who haven't made such a promise are less likely to leave the US than are foreign PhD students who've stated their intention to stay in the US and have been cleared for a path to citizenship before they arrive, but of course are free to leave. I support public funding for both cases. All I want is better odds they'll stay, based on the assumption that there is more supply of worthy foreign students who'd stay if they could, than demand for them. There's no good reason we shouldn't maximize the benefit to the US taxpayer, by cherry-picking the supply and paving the way to their citizenship in advance. That the PhD students do real science (i.e. a job) isn't a good enough reason to leave taxpayer money on the table. If some foreign student is so much a wunderkind that they'll do a $million in work for their $250K outlay, but plans to leave the US, that could be an exception.