<p>Barrons, I think we need to cut federal finaid to anyone other than STEM and medicine, and use the money for scientific research.</p>
<p>That’s settled then :)</p>
<p>“Yes there have been many lawsuits over the terms by which the companies acquire use of any intellectual property generated. Your discussion deals with the intellectual correctedness of the results, not who owns it.”</p>
<p>Universities also have lawyers. Sometimes whole schools of them, lol. And have often won such lawsuits when the issue of ownership or rights is concerned.</p>
<p>Yes, sometimes the schools win – but my point is that this is a contentious area, and I have concern with oversight.</p>
<p>Clearly, you think it’s contentious. But history shows it… isn’t much. It’s been colleges’ reality for decades. And these agreements between companies and universities are lawyered up, and have tremendous amount of intellectual and legal oversight. </p>
<p>You may not like it. But it’s the way it is. And with less and less government funding OF EVERYTHING, it’s the way of the future. Even in rich, socialist minded countries. And it’s just one reason why intellectual property is one of the fastest-growing specializations in law. </p>
<p>But I think it’s absurd to deny a school a financially and intellectually beneficial agreement just because it MAY POSSIBLY get litigious.</p>
<p>Government funded research has given the US a broad tech advantage as well as maintaining our educational advantage at the college level. As a part of the US budget it is pretty small. Private company funded research at U’s is still peanuts.</p>
<p>That is an interesting thought. I don’t know how it would play out. I would guess some schools might benefit from this. I know that UVA and W&Mary, for instance have considered going independent, at least some parts of it, and feel it would improve the quality of the school including its financial status. </p>
<p>I would guess that schools would lose state subsidies when they go independent, but some colleges are not getting a huge percentage of their revenues from there anyways. For schools that can more than make up for the loss of their state money from increased tuition, it might make sense.</p>
<p>I don’t know enough about this to come up with any definitive statements.</p>
<p>The purpose of most state schools is to educate the best and the brightest in that state (e.g. UT Austin for Texans). Most schools are, as far as I know, are run via tax dollars among other things and since not all state residents can go to any state school they want, offering in-state tuition is the least any of these schools can do.</p>
<p>I don’t think the federal government should fund ANY applied research unless the people own a share of the royalties. (Just like the federal government owns the medical marijuana patent.)</p>
<p>“Humanities majors make up a SMALL minority of top corporate job holders. Just 6%. 38% were business/accting and econ. 22% engineering.” </p>
<p>And how many holders of ADVANCED degrees in any of these are top corporate job holders? Are you comparing humanities B.A.s with MBAs and engineers with advanced degrees? Humanities majors make up a SMALL minority of college graduates.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.browndailyherald.com/humanities-departments-tout-practicality-1.2480168[/url]”>http://www.browndailyherald.com/humanities-departments-tout-practicality-1.2480168</a></p>
<p>“And you act as though these companies steal into universities in the middle of the night to do their dastardly deeds behind our unsuspecting backs.”</p>
<p>That is what they do. I can think of one professor and his private company funded research who was chased out of Berkeley when his research was discovered.</p>
<p>In addition, the number of liberal arts majors in the Brown article INCLUDES those majoring in economics, psychology, political science, sociology, biology, chemistry, mathematics. Take those out, and Humanities majors are WAY overrepresented among Fortune 500 executives.</p>
<p>(Of course, I never wanted to be a Fortune 500 executive. But if I did, music history or comparative literature is the way to the top.)</p>
<p>I’m not sure if I’m reading this correctly, but does the professor support no tuition for in-state students?</p>
<p>“That’s what they do. I can think of one professor and his private company funded research who was chased out of Berkeley when his research was discovered.”</p>
<p>And I can think of several scientists whose research and careers were destroyed during the red scare. Does that mean that we never again let the government fund research? Because it’s sometimes wrong and sometimes acts illegally? Someone has to fund universities. As I asked before: if not the government, and not industry, not the taxpayers and not even a combination of them all – then who?</p>
<p>Government funds a lot of research as well as industry. It is all documented. I think you are
referring to cuts in state funding, but Federal Gov’t and industry spends huge amounts.</p>
<p>Problem is, most people, regardless of claimed political leaning, believe that they should pay less to the government, and get more from the government (“Cut taxes!” “Hands off our Medicare and Social Security!”). At the state level, post-secondary education is often low priority compared to K-12, welfare, prisons, and tax cuts.</p>
<p>The government shouldn’t fund private parties to do research unless the people can reap their share of the financial benefits.</p>
<p>Does that make me a pinko, or a capitalist investor type?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t find it to be necessarily cynical. He may well believe that the university will benefit every bit as much as he will. {Now, you may disagree with him about whether that will happen, but it could be a sincere belief.} </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But it would be highly sympathetic towards the 1/3 of students whose tuitions will be slashed. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe he’s talking about the greater accountability of the university at large, not the accountability of tenured professors, whether himself or others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I see nothing ironic about it at all. Tenure is not designed to protect faculty against academic misconduct, which were the grounds under which Ward Churchill was fired. </p>
<p>If tenure protected faculty against even cases of academic misconduct, then consider the likely nightmare scenario: a professor could then simply fabricate or plagiarize the data of each and every single research paper he publishes to amass a tenure-worthy CV. By the time he’s finally caught, oh well, he already has tenure, so nobody can do a thing about it. In other words, tenure would protect faculty from the consequences of the very misconduct that earned them tenure in the first place. </p>
<p>What may actually be ironic is that the grounds of Churchill’s firing are still being legally disputed and are scheduled to be heard by the Colorado Supreme Court. Hence, even a case of misconduct may not be sufficient to fire a tenured faculty member (as Churchill is arguing that the charges of misconduct are merely a smokescreen for the true reasons of his firing because of his politically unpopular statements; the implication being that if you’re a tenured faculty member who may be charged with misconduct, you should make a bunch of politically inflammatory statements publicly, as you can then argue that that’s the real reason for your firing.} </p>
<p>Contrast that with the private sector, where you can not only never commit misconduct but deliver satisfactory work…and still lose your job anyway. The datacom giant Cisco Systems has announced that they will lay off 6500 workers. Merck will slash 13k. Barring possible charges of racial/gender discrimination, none of those workers can sue for wrongful termination, regardless of their job performance appraisals, as those companies never made any commitments to lifetime employment.</p>
<p>sakky, I dont think he was talking about reducing anyone’s tuition. He wants more money for salaries. So his idea is charge instate whatever can be charged and pay more to the professors. </p>
<p>If your point is that workers in the public sector are treated better than the private sector, I dont disagree.</p>