<p>
</p>
<p>Like the military academies, it’d not attract the best and brightest. We have management of public affairs programs but as expected, the best and bright go for MBA, not MPA. Again incentives, incentives, incentives.</p>
<p>
Please convince me how this isn’t suicidal. You still haven’t articulate how to align incentives/self-interests with the objectives. I must serve the government for some time? Why? If I were the best and brightest, I can get full-tuition somewhere without being locked into this…So does this school offer music, arts, literature…etc? So as a researcher, I can’t do research on dianasours, evolution…etc anymore since it doesn’t serve government purpose? That sounds pretty limiting. Why would anyone wanna turn a nice flapship offering a wide array of academic studies into some “federal trade school”? Again, what is it so attractive about serving the government? I think MOST people are thinking “you’d better pay me well enough for all these government projects if you wanna keep me…”</p>
<p>Sam Lee, U of Tokyo is Japan’s foremost university and is actually a national university. China has Peking U. Australia has ANU. Singapore has NUS. Thailand has Chulalongkorn. the Philippines has the University of the Philippines-Diliman. Even Saudi Arabia has just established one - KAUST - and put in $10B into it. France has not just one but many. England does not have any because almost all the universities there are government funded, but both Cambridge and Oxford function as the UK’s foremost national universities. Russia has one. Mexico has one. Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Spain, Taiwan, etc, etc all have at least one.</p>
<p>Ah, yes…Mexico, the Philippines, Singapore…those bastions of higher education and independent thought, world leaders in intellectual development…leading the world into the future…why can’t we be more like them?</p>
<p>Sam Lee, why do you think it would not attract the best and the brightest? All national universities have thus far attracted the best students in their respective countries. It’s an honor to be admitted into your country’s foremost university. Who wouldn’t want to attend the UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, if it would have such a name and whose budget is like no other and whose graduates are assured of a job? </p>
<p>National universities, like Seoul National University, also offer medical school, law school, business school and a range of programs in the sciences, technology, engineering, social sciences, humanities and arts.</p>
<p>
I think with the exception of the US, all the G8 countries have one foremost state U.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We already have it. It’s called Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, Columbia, Berkeley, Michigan…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We already have it. It’s called Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, Columbia, Berkeley, Michigan…</p>
<p>Why do you continue asking this question again and again? Don’t you understand? We don’t need a national university! Perhaps your country should have more elite, private institutions like ours! Why don’t you have them? Don’t you know that they have the best students, the best funding, and practically guaranteed employment after graduation? Don’t you want that in your country? Explain yourself!</p>
<p>RML, I think there is another issue at stake that you’re missing: college life at American colleges is different from most other countries. American colleges offer much more in terms of comprehensive athletic programs, clubs, and cohesive environments. People here don’t just go to the “best” school; they go to ones in which they “fit.”</p>
<p>It’s not like we just have generic universities, and if we simply rise one above the rest then it will become desirable… instead we have large research universities, small liberal arts colleges, the service academies, technical institutes, and the list goes on. We have people that choose schools for specific sports (recruited or not), clubs, activities, towns they are located in, distance from home (the US is a massive country), and weather, to name a few. This isn’t an issue or even a thought in other countries. </p>
<p>I could see a GRADUATE school working in the scenario you suggest, but for undergrads… no. Just simply no. The college environments at American schools is too different from other countries, including the ones you mention.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They are not the kind of national university you are talking about. Most graduates in National Taiwan university don’t work on government run science and engineering programs. Nor do most of them work for the government upon graduation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>U of Tokyo is like 80 other national universities. The mission of U of Tokyo is NOT to serve government projects/research. Japanese go to U of Tokyo so when they get out, they can get NICE PAYING JOBS. Same for Peking university; Peking U is not a national university, not in the way you meant it; it’s not even the best for engineering/science. That belongs to its cross-town rival. It seems to me you are just playing with the NAME (“national”) when none of those schools has anything in common with what you meant before (to produce graduates for public service/government projects). In any case, people go there becase of the career prospect and in these days, it means finance and business or whatever that afford you nice clothes, expensive cars, large flats/houses, and maybe even hot chicks/boys!!! Public service? Seems like most don’t want it.</p>
<p>RML, if you think something should be changed, you need to convince people that there is a problem. But nothing’s wrong here. Higher education is an area in which the US can still claim dominance. If you took the top 20 undergraduate colleges in the world, 18 of them would be from this country. Beyond that, there’s a range of options on the state and local level for varying academic and financial situations. It’s a really good system.</p>
<p>okay everyone. thanks for all your posts… </p>
<p>like i said, the idea of this thread is not to anger everyone, but to solicit opinions…, and you all did respond well. thank you for all your time. :)</p>
<p>Because that’s not how our country works. I mean, other countries have many things and many systems that we don’t have – that doesn’t mean the US should have them. Other countries have different national characters, different cultural norms, etc. For example, RML mentioned many Asian countries with national universities. Asian countries tend to have cultrural norms that are less about individualism and more about collectivism. I’m not talking about political systems, but about social systems – the emphasis on people doing what is best for their family, for example, instead of making choices for that are contrary to what their family wishes. The United States has its own history, and that history has made some values the norm – for example, the rebellion against a monarchy meant that certain rights and limitations about the Federal government were written into our Constitution. In the US Constitution, there’s an entire class of powers and systems that is left entirely to the states, largely because the founders of the country feared a strong national government. </p>
<p>And finally, as others may have mentioned, because of the Federal financial aid system, <em>every</em> college and university in the US is essentially a “national” one – in that funding to attend can come from the Federal government, at least in part. I think that for people who have come from other countries that have a national university system, it can seem like we should have one, but for Americans, it’s sort of like saying, “Why don’t you have state controlled national media? Then the national government could control all television for the betterment of society.” That’s just not part of our national character.</p>
<p>^That certainly explains part of the reasons why there are “national” universities elsewhere but not here. That said, again, the “national” U in many other places are not like the military academies. Many of them receive more government funding and in many countries, that means the absolute financial edge over others and that’s why they keep attracting the best faculty and students. But there’s nothing “national” about the goals of the students. The courses they take are no more “public oriented” than ours. The graduates seek out what their self-interests dictate just like we do in the US.</p>
<p>The reason that many countries especially in Asia have national universities is that they were established late (most in the 19th and 20th century). In Europe and the US, however, universities were established far earlier, without government input. Some have become part of a governmental system (as have Oxford and Cambridge) but they are not a single national university.
Oxford and Cambridge between them have 35k+ students at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Let us stipulate that they represent the very best students in the UK. The UK has a population of 61 millions. This means that Oxbridge educate 1.7% of the total UK population. For a national university to educate a corresponding percentage of the US population, it would have to educate over 3 million students.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>As soon as people from other states and countries start paying California state taxes they’ll be welcome to start taking the place all those undeserving Californians at Berkeley.</p>
<p>^^ LOL! Let students from the EU be admitted to Oxbridge in preference to undeserving Brits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I admit that there are some kids who don’t belong at Cal – but admission decisions is a topic for another thread and sakky – what I don’t understand is why all of those in the 49 other states don’t build their own comparable Uni. Michigan has one. North Carolina has one. Virginia has one. Just because [insert state name] have refused to build their own world class institution shouldn’t mean that they can demand spots somewhere else. And for students reading cc, write YOUR state legislature!</p>
<p>Something that seems to have been left out of the discussion is that the government exists to serve the people; that is why Americans chafe at the idea of one national university which exists to serve the needs of the government. RML has the idea that people should serve the government, rather than the other way around.</p>
<p>We do have a career civil service system in the USA, but it is not exactly the same as historic models in other countries. Except in the military academies, and maybe the foreign service, American government has never depended on a truly elite cadre of career civil servants selected strictly according to merit. </p>
<p>China had a rigorous imperial examination system for over 1000 years. This was the primary basis for merit-based selection into the career civil service, which was a high-status occupation for much of China’s imperial history. It influenced civil service institutions (and education) in other Asian countries, India, and the UK. But we’ve never had anything quite like it here in the USA. Government employees here are functionaries, not a ruling elite. </p>
<p>So, even if elite universities (like HYPS) did not already exist, I’m not sure we’d have a need for a single national university to provide for the personnel and leadership needs of the federal government.</p>
<p>However, I do think RML has posted a very interesting question.</p>