Why is there none NATIONAL university in America

[Weskid]

<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>I think smartalic34 is spot on when they say that this is not how America works/thinks. While the idea of a non-military service-oriented national u. could be okay, the idea that that school would be the “best” and garentee its graduate jobs in leadership would make many Americans uncomfortable. Especially because it would be really difficult for such a uni to come up with admissions criteria that wouldn’t make some people very angry. I mean, how do you even define the “best?” No one will agree, and while that’s fine for private us, a national u that claimed to be the best and train our future leaders would be put under a lot more scrutiny. This is esp. true if you are proposing it has as few as 2,000 students!</p>

<p>Also, how would this school garentee it managed to get the best students? While free tuition would certainly get some people’s attention, the fact is that year after year people shell out the big bucks to go to HPY and other top privates, even when they get into good or great state unis that are much cheaper. Or, to use another example, while Olin has used free tuition to grab a number of good engineering students away from MIT/Cal-Tech, and has done a pretty good job establishing a good reputation very quickly, there are still many people who haven’t heard of it, or dismiss it in favor of the more established unis. It would be REALLY hard for such a uni to out Harvard Harvard, so to speak, since the whole idea is a little shaky, and you can’t create a reputation to rival Harvard overnight. </p>

<p>Indeed, since HPY are very generous with finical aid, this school would only have a significant advantage in recruiting middle-class/upper-middle class students: very poor students who get into all of them are likely to get good enough aid at HPY to justify going with one of those more established schools, and very rich students will go with whichever they prefer, and if it prestige they are after, that will probably still be HPY.</p>

<p>And that doesn’t even take into account all of the top students who would rather go to an LAC or a school in X city/region (not where the national U is), or stay nearer home than the national U, or go to a school with a big sports scene or Greek scene or with or a core (or without one if the national U has one, for any of those). </p>

<p>Really, just the way the US system is set up, there is too much choice for one school to attract all of the top students, and there is potentially too much entrenched culture for any school to rival Harvard for general prestige. So while some sort of national U my or my not serve a purpose, I don’t think that purpose would be to be the best school in the country.</p>

[SmithieandProud]

<p>Penn Lover, I don’t disagree with you at all. I think it’s tragic that families have to sacrifice because they can’t afford to send their kids to the college that their children have earned spaces in, and I don’t understimate that many, many people find themselves in this situation. </p>

<p>However, I don’t think a national public uni would help those people. It would at most benefit a few thousand students, whereas channelling the money that such a university would cost into programs that assist families and students such as Pell Grants and Federal Loans, is a much more cost effective option. Offering better financial assistance to families in need can help families pay for colleges of their own choice. </p>

<p>And I don’t see at all how a national university would not require an enormous outlay of cash. You would need buildings, equipment, hire teaching and administrative staff, computer systems, dorms, food, you’d have to offer some kind of student jobs to pay students, and since it would be billed as the “national University” you would want it to have the best and most cutting edge equipment. That means it’s going to cost a lot, at least to get started. ANd if you want it to be free of charge like the service academies, well, you have to make up for that income somehow. The only way to pay for that would be to take it out of government revenue, or taxpayer money. I don’t think many people would be wild about the idea of paying taxes to subsidize such an outlay when it seems largely unnecessary.</p>

[idad]

<p>As noted earlier, one approach would be to make certain state flagships into public national universities. This would be fairly economical and build on a strong foundation.</p>

[coureur]

<br>

<blockquote>
<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>
</blockquote>

<br>

<p>Except for the fact that most of them are bigger than 2000 students, this is a pretty good description of each of the current top 10 to 15 universities in the US. What you are proposing already exists ten times over. No need to reinvent the wheel.</p>

[tenisghs]

<p>

As noted earlier, one approach would be to make certain state flagships into public national universities. This would be fairly economical and build on a strong foundation.

</p>

<p>idad, many college presidents and professors of higher education have mentioned this may become a possibility, that the nation’s top flagship state universities (let’s say the top 40) will become “nationalized” universities. The federal government will continue to fund millions of dollars in research and product development to these institutions. Other universities will concentrate more on baccalaureate education. </p>

<p>RML seems to forget that the mission of higher education in the United States has continually focused on creating access to education for all. Public taxpayers fund these schools, and in return, the colleges and universities educate these populations. We have land-grant institutions, comprehensive universities, military academies, professional schools, liberal arts colleges, and much more. Creating a “national” university in which only the best and brightest can attend with the best faculty and resources is counterproductive and uber-elitist.</p>

[RSBuletz]

<p>Putting all your best and brightest in one college will only lead to an elitist class if they are guaranteed a position of prominence in government. This also sounds like the playbook out of old Soviet Union. Will the Great Leader also get to write the syllabi.</p>

[ticklemepink]

<p>^^ Yes. Very elitist.</p>

<p>If there was a “national” university, let’s not forget where would we put it. Seriously. Washington, D.C. would be an obvious choice just because it’s the nation’s capital but DC usually draws students who are very interested in politics/IR, not the artsy, cultural types who would prefer to be in NYC or LA.</p>

<p>Besides, HYP already staked the claim on America’s best.</p>

<p>And I can’t imagine what would happen if you put students from HYPSM all together on one campus, fighting for grades…</p>

[tk21769]

<p>Historically, America had 9 Colonial Colleges, schools established prior to the Revolution. These included all of what became the Ivy League colleges (minus Cornell, which was founded much later), plus William and Mary and the school now known as Rutgers. These schools were founded in different colonies under the influence of various religious denominations. Many colleges that were founded later also were influenced by one or another denomination (Quaker, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.)</p>

<p>Colleges existed, in the beginning, primarily to train students for the clergy, the law, and medicine. The clergy was not unified into a national religion. Nor were the laws unified into a single national legal system (even today, law school graduates pass the bar in a particular state.) Medical licenses were issued by individual states. So, regionalism and sectarianism were powerful forces in American higher education. Social class also came into play. Until the last 50 years or so, most top colleges were primarily for wealthy young men. They sometimes attended the same schools their fathers or grandfathers attended, typically within a few hundred miles of home. Families would donate money to the father’s alma mater and build up a “legacy”, further cementing loyalties to that school. Sports rivalries encouraged loyal support from local communities.</p>

<p>If a national university had been proposed, it would have had to overcome these powerful regional, religious and class influences to attract the best students. Why would a prosperous family have sent its sons to school in Washington DC, if the surest path to financial and social success was to attend a college in the home or a neighboring state? For most of our history there was no huge, career federal bureaucracy. National service (in the Senate or Congress) typically came only relatively late in life, after making a name for oneself in local business or legal practice. A military career starting at a service academy and culminating in national political office was the path only for Presidents Grant, Eisenhower and Carter.</p>

<p>I agree with posters who suggest Americans are unlikely to support the idea of a single elite national university. A unified system of college financing, like a national system of health insurance, might be more popular but is sure to be just as controversial.</p>

[marite]

<p>The US already has world class universities. No need to have national universities. And absolutely no point at all.
And what does one mean by "best’? Best in English? engineering? economics? biology? art? music? history? All of the above or only one of the above? 2000 best in biology (or English or history…) or 2000 for all of the above in a population of 305 millions?
Even Oxbridge have more undergraduates each than that.</p>

[RML]

<p>

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>Like I said, there are plenty of state Us in America but most of them are so-so. Only a handful of State Us can rival the best privates, maybe only Berkeley, UCLA and Michigan. UVa, UNC and William&Mary aren’t really good for postgrad. UIUC, Texas, Purdue, Florida, Wisconsin are too postgrad focused, on the other hand. Furthermore, state Us were established for their own State students. The national U will be established for the best and the brightest students from all over America regardless of race, religion, political view, location and economic status. </p>

<p>This national university will not limit students from one state just like what State Us currently are mandated to do. It will pick the best from all over the US and will accept international students for a full fee, as long as they pass the school’s tough entrance exam. Applications will be free to all that will apply and will use its own entrance tests, not SATs, if possible. All applicants will be interviewed and will be asked to render government services for half the time they spent in the university after graduation or penalties will be imposed in a form of tuition and costs rebates. </p>

<p>This university will be a research-led and will conduct projects/researches of the government, that’s why this national U will only house the best researchers/scholars. The federal government can then re-channel the funding that they give to HYPSM to the national U. </p>

<p>This national U will not be intentionally established to throw Harvard away, because that would be a cheap vision for an academic institution…but to lead the higher education of the United States of America, and probably the world. This national U will be the trend setter of curricula, leader and laboratory of the US government to further improve lives of the Americans and other citizens of the world.</p>

[RML]

<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>Like I said, there could be 2 or 3 campuses, but that’s not really important. And please remember that national Us aren’t there to educate everyone. They’re there to carry out the projects and researches that will benefit the whole nation (and the world.) that’s why they will only educate the gifted, the chosen few, the crème of the crop. This won’t be like U of Alabama or U of North Dakota, etc. This is going to be the foremost university of the world’s richest and most powerful country.</p>

<p>If your mindset is to educate everyone for free, you’re not looking at this correctly. Your local State U are already serving that albeit not exemplarily performed. This won’t be for everyone. This is only for the best and willing to serve back to their countrymen…</p>

[mantori.suzuki]

<p>We already have the best universities in the world. No “national university” in the world today rivals our best universities. Our system is extremely diverse and guarantees that every academic subject can be studied by almost anyone who is willing to work hard enough. Our best private universities allow low-income students to attend without paying. Where is the good argument for having a national university in the U.S.? You keep telling us what it would be, but you have not explained how it would be better than our current system.</p>

[RML]

<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>The objective of the national U is not to overthrow those elite privates, but to carry out the objectives and projects of the government, that’s why the students at national U will be trained leadership, service to the country and advance research… If it will overthrow HYPSM someday, that is just the end result, not the objective. </p>

<p>

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>The US government is exploring a lot of stuff: space exploration, renewable energy which is expected to be the next boom in the next few years, genetics, economics, health - cancer cure, aids cure, etc, etc…</p>

[RML]

<p>

We already have the best universities in the world. No “national university” in the world today rivals our best universities. Our system is extremely diverse and guarantees that every academic subject can be studied by almost anyone who is willing to work hard enough. Our best private universities allow low-income students to attend without paying. Where is the good argument for having a national university in the U.S.? You keep telling us what it would be, but you have not explained how it would be better than our current system.

</p>

<p>I know; but are there graduates trained to carry out the projects of the government? Are their curricula aligned to the government’s objectives? Are there graduates asked to render service to the government after graduation? Were they studying for the advancement of the whole nation, not just for themselves and their own self interests and benefits???</p>

<p>What you don’t understand is that this national U is going to be unique in such a way that they’ll be trained to carry out the objectives of the government. HYPSM aren’t like that. Not even Berkeley, which is the closest thing you have in America, is like that. Maybe West Point is. But it is by and large, a military school.</p>

<p>

No “national university” in the world today rivals our best universities.

Not in prestige, but in terms of education, I would argue that the University of Tokyo (Japan) and Peking University in China are not really sub par to the best schools in the US. They’re not however popular due perhaps to language barriers. But they’re not sub par to what you have in the US.</p>

[drizzit]

<p>well perhaps RML you should become a US citizen and campaign to make it happen because I suspect that for most of us that would pay the bill there is little interest in your dream.</p>

<p>I believe the closer government is to the people the more effective it is. The more power and responsibility that moves to bigger and bigger organizations the less effective it is.</p>

<p>I will take a larger group of strong universities across the country managed by states and private interests over a big national U any day. The US can channel research funds to competing universities to accomplish its goals. With many strong competing universities you will see more innovation and greater participation than you ever will with a national U getting a majority of the government research funds. Competing for federal funds drives innovation among the schools and researchers. You would eliminate much of this competition.</p>

<p>I believe your model to be deeply flawed. Sounds good in theory but it is the inferior model in practice</p>

[RML]

<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>

<p>Wow!!! Hope Berkeley makes it so that it won’t just be a school for Californians as its prestige is global. If Berkeley would become a national U, it would welcome students from other States and probably won’t cater to California students who aren’t really deserving of a Berkeley education…just my 2 cents worth…</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>RML,</p>

<p>What you said doesn’t work at all in reality. You have to align incentives with the objective and right now they are not aligned. If I were the best, why would I want to go to “national university” whose goal, in your words, is to “carry out the objectives and projects of the government”? Research and projects of government are not really that attractive for many of the brightest. While some of the brightest people do work for the government, a lot do not. They become doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, entrepreneurs, or inventors for private companies that compensate much better…etc. On the other hand, if my personal goal is to serve the nation, I don’t need (to be trained at) a “national” university to do that. One of my former classmates planned to work at the national lab when he was a PhD at CalTech. Goal congruence is one of the most important things for any organization.</p>

<p>Also, US isn’t the only major nation without “the” national university. Japan has “national universities” only in the sense that they are tier-1 universities and there are about 80 of them so that doesn’t count. England doesn’t have one. The most populous country, China, doesn’t have a national university either. So I am not sure why you feel the need for it. It’s very unlikely that the US, Japan, China…etc wouldn’t thought of it if it’s anywhere close to a good idea.</p>

<p>By the way, the government hasn’t proven it can run things effectively (achieving objective) and efficiently (using the least resource). There are reasons why national labs are run by universities and why APL was given to JHU.</p>

[RSBuletz]

<p>^^^
RML, utter BS. As a CA taxpayer, just what I want to see is the fed government declaring some kind of right to take over the operation of Cal under some misguided belief in a greater good. How much could we value the goodwill that this state has accrued building up the good name of its university system.</p>

[smartalic34]

<p>

I know; but are there graduates trained to carry out the projects of the government? Are their curricula aligned to the government’s objectives? Are there graduates asked to render service to the government after graduation? Were they studying for the advancement of the whole nation, not just for themselves and their own self interests and benefits???</p>

<p>What you don’t understand is that this national U is going to be unique in such a way that they’ll be trained to carry out the objectives of the government. HYPSM aren’t like that. Not even Berkeley, which is the closest thing you have in America, is like that. Maybe West Point is. But it is by and large, a military school.

</p>

<p>RML, again, you miss the point. as others have said, education is the responsibility of the state. We, as Americans, don’t WANT a national university representing the federal government. There is no need. It may be good for other countries, but no country has a college system like ours. I think there may be a cultural misunderstanding on your part… America is based on choice, and having the federal government “groom” its own workers is against the American mentality (I think most would agree). My point is, we don’t want to be like other countries. </p>

<p>As Sam Lee said, our “best and brightest” are trained at a variety of institutions, which I think makes our government workers better - they are always bringing in new ideas from different backgrounds. If a national university is employed, the melting pot that is our nation and the constituency of our government is cut out of the loop. Which does not work. </p>

<p>Just because we’re wealthy and powerful doesn’t mean a national university would have such a dramatic effect. But even that supercedes my point, which, again, is that we don’t even need to find out.</p>

[RML]

<p>

If there was a “national” university, let’s not forget where would we put it. Seriously. Washingeton, D.C. would be an obvious choice just because it’s the nation’s capital but DC usually draws students who are very interested in politics/IR, not the artsy, cultural types who would prefer to be in NYC or LA.

</p>

<p>You don’t need to build a new campus. the US government can convert Berkeley, UMich, Cornell (if Cornell agrees), Harvard (if Harvard agrees), Stanford (if Stanford agrees), Texas-Austin, UIUC or UF to become national Universities. But their admissions must be changed and their grads must serve the government for some time (usually haft the time spent in the university). </p>

<p>BTW, when I said leadership role, I meant not blue collar jobs… sorry for my wrong use of terms…</p>