<p>$500B+/year
(I’m not advocating simple budget slashing. The military could be much more efficient with its money. That would require reforms in how budgets are created, contracts are awarded, etc, rather than simple percentage or program cuts.)</p>
<p>In defense of the service academies, they are some of the best undergraduate institutions in several fields.<br>
However, they are not THE best. For example, the US Air Force Academy is ranked #2 for aerospace engineering at the undergraduate level (last I checked). ERAU has the #1 spot. (dang it)</p>
<p>Creating a limited national university is antithetical to US education ideals in several ways. First, it reduces the number of slots to a few thousand. That defeats the prevailing view that higher education should be available to everyone. Second, it gives the government control that Americans are generally reluctant to grant. Third, the cost-benefit ratio would be reduced. Simply put, good old-fashioned competition tends to perform more efficiently. Fourth, our government’s priorities are fairly scatter-brained. Setting a direction for R&D would be difficult, especially when funding and priorities change just about every election. </p>
<p>Finally, American culture is not based on the good of the country. Most American’s visions don’t center around making the government’s dreams come true. By and large, we look to better our own lives first. This inner drive and competition is largely what made America what it is today. Basing an institution on fulfilling the desires of the government doesn’t tap into any classic American trait.</p>
<p>From the George Washington U website - “The George Washington University was created in 1821 through an Act of the Congress, fulfilling George Washingtons vision of an institution in the nations capital dedicated to educating and preparing future leaders.”</p>
<p>Because to have the University of the United States be ranked number #88 (just a random number) in the country is a disappointment. It would also be a good indicator that the federal government can’t do anything as well as a state government (not that there aren’t already things which show that, but this would be one more…).</p>
<p>To the extent that’s true, it happens over the corpses of many, many failed companies.</p>
<p>I don’t think public institutions necessarily are mediocre. The worst-case, most dangerous outcome would be if the government actually succeed in creating a super elite national university. Unlikely but not inconceivable. Think of the Soviet, East German or PRC Olympic programs. First rate. But good for the athletes?</p>
<p>Better to have our best students dispersed in school communities throughout the country.</p>
<p>It’s an interesting question but i cannot see any benefit. Without that, there is no point. The OP talks about the uber top students, but uber top students pay very little for their college education at any number of fine institutions. So cost is not a benefit. And how would a national system be for the betterment of society as a whole? The system as it currently exists with public institutions and private institutions is able to educate the vast majority that desire upper level education. Barriers to entry have little to do with availability and the barriors to entry would not be removed by creating a national system of upper level education. And finally, as pointed out by many, the “government” already, through the service academies, produces graduates who serve the needs of government in all areas so why create redundancies?</p>
<p>Good find, mamabear1234! GWU should change their letterhead to, “George Washington University: The National University of the United States of America.” :p</p>
<p>The federal government runs, at least, four great colleges and one medical school. (There is one in New London, CT, another in Colorado Springs, CO, one outside of Newburgh , NY right onthe hudson River (beautiful campus by the way and within easy driving distance of NYC); and another in Annapolis, MD. The Medical School is in Bethesda, MD. Theyare great, but not necessarily better than the nations top private colleges and universities. They are very difficult to get into, but if you are accepted tuition is paid for by the American taxpayers.</p>
<p>Also, remeber that it is the people that created the states and the states that created the federal government. The assumption that a federal university should somehow be superior to state universities is a false assumption and prone to those ignorant of American history.</p>
<p>I’m glad RML started this thread, because it smoked out an interesting example of a genuinely American way of looking at things. I think the vast majority of Americans of all political leanings would probably agree on this one.</p>
<p>Many countries, including the UK, do not have a single national university. Instead, they have several top universities (Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial College). The Netherlands, with a small population, has both the University of Amsterdam and The Free University of Amsterdam as well Leiden. While ITT is definitely a world class university and is harder to get into than any US college, it is focused on science and technology. Scholars of the social sciences and humanities did their undergraduate degrees at a variety of excellent universities.</p>
<p>Nobody has mentioned population or geography. Fine for Italy to have one national university (if it does), but the entire population of the whole of Europe is around 2.5 times the US population, so you might as well propose that the whole of Europe have 2. 5 national universities, and you can imagine how well that would go over in individual European countries. People in Europe tend to forget how much area countries like the US, Australia, and Canada occupy, and that it isn’t a short train ride from one edge to the other. </p>
<p>Most of all, there isn’t much about most of the Euorpean or Asian universities that many US residents would want to replicate. While Oxford and Cambridge and LSE are well known and have deservedly excellent reputations, who wants a national university system like France’s where students face strikes all the time and where classes are huge? Or like Germany’s system where exams you take early in high school determine whether you’ll ever be allowed entrance into college at all? Japan’s system where getting into college is the big deal, but not so much what you do once you get there? </p>
<p>There’s a reason that there is a net inflow of graduate students into the US from all these countries with national universities.</p>
<p>Hunt: Yup, I would say that several posters are trying to express “the American character” as being a factor against this. I don’t know that it gets talk about a lot, other than in a negative way. (“OMG, Americans think they own the world!”)</p>
<p>Re post 152: check my posts. I have discussed population size and geography several times as one reason why a national university is not a good idea.</p>
<p>Is this “genuinely American way of looking at things” automatically worse than the view from abroad? Does it suffer from excessive objectivity and rational sense?</p>
<p>Anyone slightly familiar with the past contributions of the original posters could “smoke out” the message hidden in the not-so subtle rhetorical question. It would have been much easier for the parents who have not been subjected to the typical nonsense posted in another subforum by the same poster to see the folllowing question:</p>
<p>“I believe that Cal should be transformed into the National University of the United States at Berkeley, and that this should eradicate its fiscal and leadershi[ shortcomings? Do you agree” :)</p>
<p>The sister of a friend from grad school visited from Kenya some years ago. She had an itinerary of things she wanted to see, which went something like this:</p>
<p>Day 1: Grand Canyon, Golden Gate Bridge
Day 2: Sears Tower, Statue of Liberty</p>
<p>…and so on. We had a good laugh and then gently explained that she might have to make a few adjustments to her schedule.</p>
<p>xiggi, I wonder if you may have read too much into that statement. I took it to mean simply that we are less focused than some other countries on a single, national identity that would warrant a single, national educational institution.</p>
<p>After reading this whole thread, this is almost exactly what I thought. In the US, we have a system of government that is different from most countries. While it is not a perfect comparison, asking for a truly national university in the US is like asking for a university operated by the European Union. The population and size of the “nation”, not to mention regional politics, would make it a nightmare trying to create a national, comprehensive university. In my view, the US is made up of 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and other political entities. Each one of these has the power to create their own university systems, and most have. Yes, some of these systems aren’t the best and cannot compare to HYP on many levels, but they still are institutions which educate a lot of the population. According to the US Constitution and its amendments, the powers not granted to the US Federal Government, which include many retained by other governments, are given to either the individual state governments or the people themselves.</p>
<p>RML, not all the states have the best university systems, we know that. But not all nations have the best university systems either. For use as examples, you picked the universities of North Dakota and Alabama. Yes, they are not top-20 schools, but they represent the interests of their state governments, as they are state-run and primarily state-supported institutions. Notice that if the US Federal Government ran the institutions, they could be called federally-ran/supported or state-ran/supported as the word state can refer to a nation, but is not always used in the US due to confusion with the individual states. </p>
<p>It is obviously possible for a student to attend school in a state where they are nonresidents and still receive federal funding, but the state reserves the right to restrict enrollment, just like countries reserve the right to restrict international enrollment by limiting acceptances, student visas, etc. In short, a national comprehensive university is not needed at this time. If a special type of education benefiting the nation as a whole is needed, then one may have a case. But don’t expect that university to become #1 overnight, things take time.</p>
<p>I almost laughed outloud at the idea of UCBerkeley as a National University. Berkeley is strongly influenced by and influences the local culture that surrounds it – it is <em>very</em> “Californian”, for the value of California that is largely coast-hugging liberal/democratic leaning. Such a university could not really be said to represent US “national values” in many ways, and includes many groups, practices, and ideas that have historically offended many Americans. Think for example of the free speech movement during the '60’s and how shocking that was to much of middle America. The idea that it could in some how be molded into a school that champions the values of the government seems almost hilariously inappropriate – it’s about as far away from that as any big university in the US could be. :-)</p>