<p>JWT96,</p>
<p>I would argue that your sports analogy is more appropriate than you seem to think. Bidding for these papers is too often a vanity exercise on the part of the U., having little to do with education, much like having a winning team. </p>
<p>The same is true for the “largest” art museum. Let me take targeted quality over plain volume any day. After all, for good art education, you don’t need huge numbers of objects.</p>
<p>That’s why UT does this. Remember that it appeals to a different constituency, including the public who pays the taxes that funds the place, the legislature and other political groups as well as the traditional ones. </p>
<p>So actions like this give the appearance of quality even if they don’t lead to true quality. And as long as texas can claim the “best” it is good for them.</p>
<p>But on the broader issue of competition, why do the top privates and the top publics need to compete head to head? Just consider that, with the exception of Stanford, Cornell and Penn (maybe Duke?), none of the elites have the breadth of faculty or physical resources that a good state university has. There is great value in theis breadth. It is too bad state U’s don’t bould from it more.</p>