
The Looming Decline of the Public Research University - stablemap
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septemberoctober-2017/the-looming-decline-of-the-public-research-university/
======
mhneu
Think of this article as describing the canary in the coal mine. The effect it
describes is absolutely real. Universities in the US are facing serious
issues.

The university system in the US is the envy of the world right now. But US
universities are degrading on several fronts, some internal (rising tuition
which drives out smart students from less well off families, most evident now
in law schools) and some external (cuts in government funding, most evident in
Wisconsin GOP donor attacks on universities and public education more
generally[1].)

There are some posts below from students who say they don't see much going
wrong. Yes, they don't see much going wrong _yet_. But the underpinnings of
universities are being eroded.

Research funding is harder to get. NIH and NSF budgets are down 20-30% in real
dollars in the past two decades. Meanwhile schools are expanding and hiring
more faculty and staff that are supposed to obtain their salaries from NIH and
NSF. At the same time the long-held commitment to educating the best students
is fading [2].

[1] "Hacked records show Bradley Foundation taking its conservative Wisconsin
model national" [https://projects.jsonline.com/news/2017/5/5/hacked-
records-s...](https://projects.jsonline.com/news/2017/5/5/hacked-records-show-
bradley-foundation-taking-wisconsin-model-national.html)

[2] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/book-review-
failing-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/book-review-failing-law-
schools-by-brian-z-
tamanaha/2012/08/03/e7054c9c-c6df-11e1-916d-a4bc61efcad8_story.html) "If you
think those claims sting, consider Tamanaha’s argument that law school
effectively transfers money from students to relatively well-to-do professors,
via student-loan debt — much of which is ultimately guaranteed by federal
taxpayers who are generally not as well-off as the typical law professor.

Law school faculties are also bastions of liberal politics, and this irony is
not lost on Tamanaha, who accuses the professoriate of not only enriching
itself but also erecting de facto barriers to upward social mobility and true
public-service law practice, all in the name of “academic freedom” and other
abstractions."

~~~
baron816
Your point about rising tuition driving out less well off families is also a
result of reduced government funding.

Research should never be funded by tuition anyway. That research is a public
good, the burden for funding it should not be placed on the backs of the
nations youth, who have to in turn finance that tuition with debt.

It's a shame that one political party in this country has taken to believing
that all of the world's problems can be solved with lower taxes (not low
taxes, lowER taxes). Externalities and public goods do not exist.

~~~
pragmatic12
It seems clear that easy money (anyone can get student loans) is the primary
driver of rising tuition costs (driving out less well off families) not
reduced government funding.
[http://images.mic.com/gcnmd1o6fihnkyh0kgimslfoombvuel882tmho...](http://images.mic.com/gcnmd1o6fihnkyh0kgimslfoombvuel882tmhohvkeevifezxnbckipfamtbpvvx.jpg)
[https://www.google.com/search?q=rising+education+costs&sourc...](https://www.google.com/search?q=rising+education+costs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_tPTMufvWAhUnllQKHdJCAxgQ_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=940#imgrc=FXR8HQljRmAnaM):

~~~
allenz
It isn't clear to me. Your links only show that student debt and tuition costs
are correlated. I think that costs cause debt rather than vice versa.

~~~
acjohnson55
It's not just debt, it's the fact that the debt is effectively unlimited. The
problem is that we want an education market but also for no one to be priced
out of higher ed. So we provide easy credit, and there's consequently no brake
on costs.

~~~
allenz
That is a matter of political interpretation. You aren't wrong, but your
solution of reducing the availability of loans has the direct consequence of
reducing access to education for poor people and reducing university budgets
funded by that debt. I don't like these consequences. My solution is to
increase government investment in education which is why I view reduced
funding as the main driver of tuition costs. I believe this partly because I
believe that a college education can be worth a million dollars, because it
can increase salary by $80k/yr, not to mention the non-economic personal and
societal benefits.

~~~
aaron-lebo
If everyone in society had a college degree, they wouldn't increase salary by
$80k. They already don't for most people and if you increase the supply...

I don't see how your interpretation is based in anything other than wishful
thinking.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
>> If everyone in society had a college degree, they wouldn't increase salary
by $80k.

Free education doesn't mean that everyone has a college degree. It means that
everyone who chooses to study for a college degree has the opportunity to
obtain one.

Most colleges and universities in the USA were non-profit, until the 1970's.
Everyone didn't have a college degree back then.

Finally, as an aside- it's a bit problematic to measure the value of a college
degree just by monetary gains alone. Job satisfaction is at least as important
and probably more.

------
woodandsteel
This problem is happening in part due to the ascent of the conservative
political movement. Conservatives hate research universities for two reasons.

One is they get their grants from the government, and conservatives believe
the government is awful for most things, and research instead be done by
private corporations.

The other reason is that conservatives see universities as hotbeds of athiest,
radical left ideology, and so basically want to shut them down. In fact, one
of the founding books of the modern conservative movement is William F.
Buckley's _God and Man at Yale_.

~~~
alexryan
> conservatives believe the government is awful for most things, and research
> instead be done by private corporations.

This seems entirely rational to me. A private corporation must strive to meet
real human needs in order to survive. Capital tends to flow towards those who
are best able to convert it into happiness for other human beings. Public
institutions have no such constraint. Logically, one would conclude that they
would be less efficient at converting capital into happiness for other human
beings.

Is there any evidence of which I should be aware which supports the
proposition that publicly funded research outperforms privately funded
research?

~~~
Cyph0n
The evidence is this: try to name one private corporation that either
internally or externally funds basic research that is guaranteed​ to have no
application in the next 10 years at the very least.

You most probably can't. The reason is that private corporations have a very
short-term outlook and are (understandably) looking for short-term returns.

~~~
replicatorblog
Depends on how you define basic research. I don't think there is a tremendous
amount of difference in the type of research being conducted at many
departments at MIT and Google or SpaceX. I recently had dinner with a Harvard
Medical School professor who said he often encouraged bright academically-
minded students to go to work at Google rather than pursue the tenure track
because Google offered more freedom and a simpler path to resources.

~~~
speedplane
The incentives are totally different. Industry will fund research if it may
potentially provide an ROI. Google and SpaceX may be willing to take bigger
and longer term risks, but ROI is unquestionably their goal.

Academics aren't incentivized by ROI. Instead, they want intellectual
distinction and recognition, and pursue problems if they are perceived to be
intellectually curious or may have a large impact on society.

Sometimes the actual work that is being done can overlap, but underneath the
motivations are completely different, and each have their own pros and cons.
We need both.

~~~
replicatorblog
Yes and no. I'm not sure Google's research into glucose-sensing contact lenses
is motivated by R&D in any sense a Wall Street analyst would recognize.
Likewise with their research into life extension science. These are decade
long bets that do not slot into any commercial structure at the company. Sure,
if they cure death, it'll be huge, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of
urgency, or ability, to commercialize that research. More important than ROI
are these two factors (IMO):

\+ The founders retain a lot of control via the company stock structure, are
nerds, and seemingly want to recreate a Bell Labs style culture. \+ Doing
crazy science keeps up their brand as a tech thought leader current, even
though 95% of their revenue comes from a pretty simple set of products that
about 20 years old. This helps them recruit the best and brightest.

Doing this kind of research also gives them a plausible potential growth story
to sell to the Street. So it's not that commerce doesn't cross their mind, but
it's not in the short-term sense that a lot of people think of it as. I'm not
opposed to university research, I just think people underweight the corporate
side's contributions.

~~~
eecc
Sorry but - however inspiring this story may be - I as a citizen don’t want to
abdicate my role in society in the decision process and suffice myself to
consume.

Google may be top “freedom of research” today but it’s a private property I
have no influence or stake whatsoever; one day they take a u-turn and “spring
clean” all.

I can’t trust a couple guys just because “they’re nerds”, that’s not a long
enough guarantee. You actually used Bell Labs as an example... is it still as
prominent today as it was? Why not?

~~~
replicatorblog
That's fine. But any argument against Google as a private property applies
equally to Harvard (and the entire Ivy League), Stanford, MIT, etc.

State universities are great, but they're not where the lion's share of Nobel-
caliber research is done. In the US, Private schools lead 10:1 in the Nobel
race: ([https://www.bestmastersprograms.org/50-universities-with-
the...](https://www.bestmastersprograms.org/50-universities-with-the-most-
nobel-prize-winners/)).

~~~
Cyph0n
There is still a difference between Google and Stanford: one is not a for-
profit institution, and therefore has access to public research funding such
as from the NSF.

------
matthewwiese
I'm not really sure what to make of this article, as I'm currently a 4th-year
student at the main subject, Ohio State. Perhaps as an undergraduate, I am
divorced from the specific administrative and funding roadblocks plaguing
research faculty, but in my day-to-day activities I see little in the way of a
hurting OSU. The university this past year revamped the student living
situation on north campus [1][2]. The university is expanding at a feverish
pace because students _want_ to come here; we are gaining recognition beyond
being simply a football school and aspiring high school students are not
considering OSU to be nearly the backup school it once was. Sure, it isn't as
flashy to tell your relatives you go to OSU as opposed to MIT or Harvard, but
it's not the disappointment most used to consider it to be.

This article exposes much that I've been ignorant to as an undergrad, but it
feels to blow some issues out of proportion. Sure, we don't nearly have as
much funding as private universities, but that's par for the course for a
public university which offers cheap tuition for local students, and is
generous with its scholarships.

And many educated students leave for "greener pastures" upon graduation, but
that also feels natural to me. Most students who come here are from Ohio, and
so once they get that diploma, it opens doors in the entire country which they
are hungry to pursue.

Maybe I'm just a bit too thick to see the apocalypse the author is
foretelling.

[1]
[http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/home_and_garden/2016...](http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/home_and_garden/2016/08/21/ohio-
colleges-new-dorms-encourage-interaction-outside-rooms-not-luxury-perks.html)
[2] [https://www.thelantern.com/2016/02/new-residence-halls-
set-f...](https://www.thelantern.com/2016/02/new-residence-halls-set-for-
north-campus/)

~~~
bradleyjg
The American research university is two* institutions uncomfortably sharing an
organization -- one has as its mission undergraduate and professional
education and the other cutting edge research. Some of the staff involved with
the latter participate in larger or smaller ways in the former, but for those
that excel at research, especially in STEM, its a more or less voluntary
choice how much time and effort they choose to put into the teaching part of
the university. There's also plenty of staff on both sides that don't at all
overlap.

There's all kind of post hoc explanations for why this historically contingent
organizational structure is really super optimal and the best of all ways of
setting things up, but frankly they aren't very convincing. Probably the least
bad is the notion that this structure is the only politically palatable way to
subsidize the intellectual output of arts and many of the social science. But
even there, I'm not wholly convinced.

*Actually more than two. There's also semi-pro sports teams among other things.

~~~
mhneu
>There's all kind of post hoc explanations for why this historically
contingent organizational structure is really super optimal... but frankly
they aren't very convincing.

Disagree. The best place for undergrads to get a top-notch education is where
they have the opportunity to work with or even around top-notch researchers
and people at the top of their fields. Yes, many faculty don't spend that much
time with undergrads, but they spend some. And they spend time with grad
students who spend time with undergrads. This is the best way we know how to
organize great teaching for undergrads.

~~~
Fomite
The opportunity to work with research faculty I would otherwise not have
encountered literally changed my life.

~~~
auggierose
> Maker of artisinal, small-batch simulation models for the discerning
> infectious disease consumer.

Would love to hear more :)

~~~
Fomite
I'm an infectious disease researcher who works with computational models of
epidemics.

I'm also in the Pacific Northwest, so it seemed...appropriate.

------
bogomipz
I don't doubt for a minute that these budget cuts are awful but I was struck
by the following passage and I'm hoping someone can answer my questions:

>"Universities perform more than half of all basic research in America, and
public research universities in particular account for nearly 60 percent of
the $63.7 billion allocated annually by the federal government for research.
That spending, in turn, produces more than 2,600 patents and 400 companies a
year, according to the National Science Board."

The US Federal Government allocated funding that produces "2,600 patents and
400 companies a year"? Does revenue from those patents and companies not
funnel into the University's endowments?

Or is this a case of where its the public's money when it comes to funding but
private money when that funding produces successful patents and companies and
profits? For instance the article mentions Gore-Tex and references, presumably
the Mosaic Web Browser. Did profits from those not flow back into the schools?
Is there something in their charger that prevents that?

~~~
wuliwong
$63 billion to produce 400 companies seems like a statistic someone would cite
if they wanted to argue against this funding. That is roughly $150 million per
each new company. That seems like a very high number, particularly when their
is no qualifier as to the success of any of these companies.

~~~
torpfactory
Don't forget that you also help to fund quite a few PhDs, masters students and
undergraduate research assistants, many of whom go on to work in private
industry....

~~~
maksimum
And hopefully those students acquire skills that let them earn more (create
more value to society) and hence pay more taxes than if they had only had a
bachelors.

------
chis
This is only semi-related, but it seems like the subtext behind a lot of these
articles is that America was better in the 20th century, when elites made all
the decisions, and the internet has resulted in too much democracy.

This is another problem that boils down to short-sighted politicians voted in
to cut spending everywhere and kill regulations. Maybe things were better when
a group of elite New Yorkers controlled the entire media and the range of
political discourse.

~~~
dv_dt
Elites are still making all the decisions in the past and now. Actually I
think this is a shift of elite thinking from a rounded "greek classics"
education, and value of the foundations of civilization line of thinking, to
everything has to pay it's way type of thinking.

~~~
Spooky23
Great description.

Old school leaders weren’t as transactional as the people running things
today.

------
ben_jones
I think it's going to be really bad because the people in charge,
administrators and executives making large salaries in relatively low COL
locations, are going to pretend everything is fine through years of slow
burning until there is a nuclear explosion at the end of it. Why turn off the
oil well if its benefiting you and you yourself arent hurt by the flames?

EDIT: exactly like the mortgage crisis went down

~~~
brandnewlow
And exactly like the situation at newspapers 2005-2015

------
kapauldo
Universities have become country clubs. Those funding figures include absurd
overhead rates that fund absurd compensation packages for professors and
administrators. Tuition has also gotten absurd. This bubble has to burst
before we can repair our public universities.

~~~
dcre
I agree with your first sentence, but professors at public universities don't
actually make much money compared to other professions with similar education
levels. Typical pay is 70-90k.

[https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/11/annual-
aaup-s...](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/11/annual-aaup-salary-
survey-says-professor-pay-34)

~~~
Brybry
My understanding, the last time I looked into it, is that universities have a
lot more administrators than they used to and those admins earn a lot more
than they used to.

And it wasn't just absolute, it was relative to teacher/student ratios and
tenured positions growth and educator wage increase.

~~~
mhneu
Great article on this by a Nobel laureate at Harvard:

"A Top-Heavy Administration? By DAVID H. HUBEL January 31, 2012 17 In 1958,
Stephen Kuffler was invited to come from Johns Hopkins Medical School to
Harvard Medical School to become a full professor in the Department of
Pharmacology. He brought with him four post-doctoral fellows: Torsten Wiesel,
Ed Furshpan, David Potter, and myself. Along with Ed Kravitz, we formed the
nucleus that led to the founding of the Department of Neurobiology five years
later.

When we arrived, Harvard Medical School was directed by one dean—George Parker
Berry. He was assisted by a genius, Henry Meadow, who joined HMS in 1950 as
executive secretary to the Committee on Research and Development. The two of
them ran the whole school. Berry was grouchy and firm-handed and what he said
was law.

....

you should see the list of FAS administrators. My printout runs to over 16
pages. I haven't counted up the various kinds of FAS deans, but the list
dwarfs that of the Medical School. "

[http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/1/31/david-hubel-
harv...](http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/1/31/david-hubel-harvard-
administration-deans-medical/)

~~~
smelendez
Here's the list of deans at Harvard Medical School:
[https://hms.harvard.edu/about-hms/leadership](https://hms.harvard.edu/about-
hms/leadership)

Which positions do you think could be eliminated or merged?

------
aaron-lebo
The article is focused almost entirely on the Rust Belt and Midwest. Kept
waiting for the article to expand to the rest of the US, but it could as well
be titled: "The Looming Decline of the Midwestern Public Research University".

In the South at a second tier university, it amazes me how alive everything
seems and how useful the research coming out of there is. I don't really see
the decline. The growth and construction and hiring just goes on and on.
Wouldn't be shocked if the financial situation of some states (Illinois,
hello) would cause some major difficulties with publicly financing education,
but is that going on throughout the country?

Certainly a danger going forward will be private companies that can far
outpace anything academia offers in money, prestige, or mobility. The semi-
closed, semi-open nature of the research teams at the bigger companies is
confusing, in particular, but if they are disseminating that research, it's
hard to argue the private route of research is especially worse than the
public.

~~~
rconti
It seems that, generally, public education and research funding is being cut
nationwide. It's possible that the powerhouses on the coasts are able to make
up for it with fundraising more than midwestern schools are. I can't speak to
your experience in the south, but you might have similarly generous donors. Or
maybe your state is a standout in public funding.

~~~
aaron-lebo
I looked it up, and UT Dallas's most recent endowment numbers are $500
million. I know the state is really good about funding and the state isn't in
an especially precarious situation, but "Wisconsin, and Illinois and Ohio
State, which together enroll nearly 190,000 students, add up to about $11
billion" still puts UTD well below their mark and 76x less than Harvard's 38
billion.

It's been constant growth for at least the last 10 years, so not sure where
the funding differential is, what allows a smaller college to thrive, while
bigger and more prestigious ones have financial concerns. To be fair, UTD does
a fraction of the research of the bigger colleges, so maybe it doesn't come
into play.

~~~
ZoeZoeBee
I'm not certain which small colleges you are describing, but nationwide small
colleges are getting hammered and will continue to do so based on demographic
trends.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-
point/wp/2017/02/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-
point/wp/2017/02/09/small-colleges-fight-to-survive-amid-warnings-of-shaky-
finances/)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/us/small-colleges-
losing-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/us/small-colleges-losing-
market-share-struggle-to-keep-doors-open.html)

[http://college.usatoday.com/2017/02/24/for-many-small-
colleg...](http://college.usatoday.com/2017/02/24/for-many-small-colleges-its-
a-challenge-just-to-stay-open/)

~~~
aaron-lebo
I was describing the college I cited which is thriving (which else?). I can't
access the first link (paywall), but the second starts off describing Franklin
Pierce University, a small private university, which isn't the topic of the
article (public research universities).

------
mobilefriendly
The main driver is increased state spending on health care, particularly
Medicaid. That spending, which is mandatory, crowds out education funding,
because states have a balanced budget requirement. Medicaid spending in
Illinois, for example, is up 141% since 2000 and health care is 25% of the
state budget. Obamacare, which did nothing to control health care costs,
actually expanded Medicaid eligibility.

[https://www.illinoispolicy.org/health-care-costs-
consume-25-...](https://www.illinoispolicy.org/health-care-costs-
consume-25-percent-of-illinois-budget/)

~~~
jbapple
A. It is not mandatory:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Indepen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius)

B.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Afforda...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Medicaid_expansion):
"The federal government paid 100% of the cost of Medicaid eligibility
expansion in participating states in 2014, 2015, and 2016; and will pay 95% in
2017, 94% in 2018, 93% in 2019, and 90% in 2020 and all subsequent years."

------
jorblumesea
Sadly this will impact the states that are suffering the most and all voted
for Trump in the election. The liberal elites on the coasts will be fine, with
their Silicon Valley institutions, giant tech companies or Ivy League
endowments. The midwest, who already took a huge hit in their economies by
losing manufacturing, is losing their one competitive advantage. The
inequality gap, already an issue for the midwest, will widen.

