<p>Why is everyone assuming that if we had a national university, it would automatically become one of the country’s best universities?</p>
<p>We have state universities in every state, and only a few of them (Berkeley, UVA, UCLA, UNC-Chapel Hill, Michigan, and maybe one or two others) rank with the top privates, and even those are not at the very top.</p>
<p>I think the same thing would happen with a national university. Government can do an OK job of running things, but the very best of private institutions can do better, at least in the American system.</p>
<p>Why not consolidate those funds and give the bulk of it to the country’s foremost university, say, the University of the United States of America (UUSA) or the University of America UA)? </p>
<p>Pick America’s top 2000 students and house them on a single campus where they will be trained advanced instructions, leadership, service to the country with curricula that are geared towards the America’s future goals and ambitions… </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>China is larger than the US but it only has Peking U as its national University. So size isn’t really the issue here. If you think the US is too large to have 1 national university then it could have 2 or 3 or even 5. Say, UofUSA-Washington DC, UofUSA-Berkeley, UofUSA-NY, UofUSA-Virginia, UofUSA-Boston…</p>
<p>And they are both private, and neither is a “national university.” great Britain does not have a national university.</p>
<p>There is absolutely no reason for there to be a NATIONAL university in the US. There are state universities in each and every state already; many states are larger than many countries of the world. </p>
<p>Good plan RML gut the federal funding for hundreds of universities and thousands of students to focus on one or two university and far fewer students.</p>
<p>Sounds like the road to mediocrity or worse to me with far fewer students having access to a great education.</p>
<p>Because this is where the best of the best students will go and will be taught by the best faculty with curricula that’s more advanced than all the rest. This university will have the assurance of the government that all their students will study for free and will cover all school-related expenses. In addition, all their graduates will be assured of a job (not necessarily high-paying) but something where leadership is needed. This university will have the biggest funding in the whole country and will do research projects of the government. This university will have a medical school, law school, business school and a vast array of courses at the undergrad and postgrad level. This university will blow Harvard away as this university is envisioned to be the foremost institution of higher learning not just in America but the whole world as America runs the world.</p>
marite, I’m pretty sure that my alma mater, Cambridge, is a state-funded public university. mDoesn’t have the status of a national university though, but it functions as such.</p>
<p>Every State doesn’t have to cut their budget for their constituent universities then. America can create one with budget coming directly from the feneral government…</p>
<p>Sorry, RML, but your questions show a complete ignorance of America’s values and system of government. If you want to know the answers, you should study our history and culture and live here for a few years. We would welcome you!</p>
<p>^ Some people learn through reading posts on this message board. (I find many members quite informative, actually.) I’m not arguing or are trying to - just trying to study the answers of the different posters and hope to see the dissimilarities on opinions…</p>
Now you’re being superfluous. I have no problem with providing a federal university that could act as an alternative to students with poor state universities, but to suggest that the United States government should start pouring massive amounts of money into it to compete with world renowned institutions like HYP and Oxbridge is ridiculous. Our state universities don’t even allow students to study for free. And I can guarantee you that our population would be irate if we payed in full for an admitted international student’s tuition – I know I would.</p>
<p>Again, you’re out of the loop with American society. Our nation is trillions in debt and falling fast. In addition, we’re looking to implement a universal health care system that would cost an exponential amount of money, and there has been discussion of a second economical bailout (although I believe that’s died down). We are in no position whatsoever to be fully financing the foremost educational institution in the world. If anything, China would do a much better job at that…</p>
<p>And to marite, there are virtually no private universities in England; 99.9% are public. Cambridge is one of them.</p>
<p>Why does there have to be just one? There are already so many options for Americans to choose from, it’s dizzying. From community colleges to state flagships to privates to the military academies. I don’t see what the point is of this uber-university you are proposing. Why would it out Harvard Harvard?</p>
<p>Penn Lover, I agree that the federal government could play a more constructive role in American education (I know some people disagree, that’s their perogative). But I don’t think a national university would really be that constructive. Again, it would require a huge outlay of cash to benefit only a small number of students. That money could be much better used to help lots of students and researchers succeed through grants and federal student loans and other programs. </p>
<p>And to the OP if such a university were to pay for its students to get an education, I gaurantee you that no foreign students would be allowed, or at least no foreign students would get to go for free. In order to justify the expense also, it would need to be similar in structure to a service academy, requiring congressional sponsorship and some kind of national service upon graduation. </p>
<p>I just don’t see how this would be viable or why it is neccessary. It sounds a little bit like the OP is just having trouble picking a US school and would like it if the choices were narrowed down for them. Consider choice as a good thing!</p>
<p>You seem confused as to definitions.
receiving state funds and being a national university are quite different things. Even HYPS received public funds for research as well as for poor students. But they are still private universities.
Oxbridge are not top universities because they receive government funding. They were top well before they received government funding. </p>
<p>If you want to advocate for national universities, start with GB and see how many would want to leave Oxbridge for that university. Then we can start thinking about how many HYPSM etc… faculty would want to join a brand new national American university.</p>
<p>Smithie, I have to say I don’t think I quite agree with you there. If you look around even these boards, you’ll find families that had the option of sending a child to a top 30 or so school, but chose the flagship state university because it was cheaper. This, as I said earlier, can be problematic for students that have less than stellar state universities (think somebody who has the stats to get into Berkeley being forced into the University of Nebraska). Of course these students on to do fine for themselves, some even excellently, but I personally do not feel that a family should be forced into that position. I think you would be surprised how many people are stuck in the above situation and have to make an extremely difficult decision.</p>
<p>Obviously such an institution would cost money, but I feel that it would be well worth it in the long run. Since we’re speaking in hypothetical terms here, ideally come the new elections we’d be cutting out fraud from various programs and starting to march our way back to deficit neutrality. Years from now when things have evened out, I don’t think it would be improbable to implement a federal university. Like I said earlier, we don’t have to pour absurd amounts of money into it to make it compete with the best of the best.</p>
<p>This, of course, is just my opinion though. People of all political and economic persuasions will have entirely different views. =)</p>
<p>I take it back about Oxbridge. They have both become public. Which means that there is no single national university in GB. Even within the University of London system, there are quite different colleges with different missions and levels of quality.</p>
<p>The size of Cambridge is similar to that of Harvard. Ditto Oxford. UK’s population is about 61 millions. US population is 305 millions. Should there be a single national university for a population that is five times that of the UK? How many students would it be expected to accommodate?</p>
<p>to RML: as others have said, there is simply NO need for a national university. our elite schools, such as the Ivy League schools, MIT, Stanford, Williams, Amherst, Wesleyan, Swarthmore, Berkeley, Virginia, etc… all provide educations that would be next to impossible to “top” at a national university. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>that’s the thing about America… there are no specific future goals and ambitions announced by the government. the country bases everything on choice, and churning out graduates like that would be called “brain-washing” here. notice how most of our Presidents went to schools like Harvard, Yale, and Columbia; these schools train our best and brightest for leadership, service to the country, etc. but with the ingrained notion that they think for themselves what’s best. I think our top schools show that; there is no need whatsoever for a national university. none.</p>
<p>Also, I believe, there was a recent article (perhaps even posted on CC) proposing to identify several top state publics and turning them into national universities. The idea is being considered.</p>
I actually support this idea to an extent. I don’t feel as though we need to be swallowing up all the best publics, but I don’t think incorporating somewhere like UCLA or William and Mary would be poor choices. However, I’m not sure what the public backlash would be, what with taking away their flagship (or at least prominent) uni’s. They would probably have to receive compensation of some sort, though. Perhaps reduced or eliminated tuition for in-state students?</p>
If you look around even these boards, you’ll find families that had the option of sending a child to a top 30 or so school, but chose the flagship state university because it was cheaper. This, as I said earlier, can be problematic for students that have less than stellar state universities (think somebody who has the stats to get into Berkeley being forced into the University of Nebraska). Of course these students on to do fine for themselves, some even excellently, but I personally do not feel that a family should be forced into that position. I think you would be surprised how many people are stuck in the above situation and have to make an extremely difficult decision.</p>