

Save the Libraries. Cut University Funding Instead. - johnnybgoode
http://jbgst.tumblr.com/post/17854375085/save-the-libraries-cut-university-funding-instead

======
microarchitect
This is a terrible article and I don't know why it's near the top of HN.

 _Libraries do a much better job of directly serving the poor. Universities,
at best, tend to do this indirectly, if at all. Most university students and
professors are already middle class or higher._

This came off as a rhetorical device with little meaning. First, there's an
implicit value judgement that "serving the poor" is better than serving the
"middle class". It's not clear why this should be true and even if the
judgement itself were true, the author does nothing to backup his claim that
libraries serve the poor and universities don't.

Maybe serving the middle class by producing a highly qualified workforce
eventually helps the poor more than just throwing money at libraries. I don't
know if this is the case, but if we're the in the business of throwing out
assertions that we like I'd like to throw this one into the mix.

The author needs to do a much better job of convincing us that libraries are
more of a social good than universities. And we're looking for more than just
a few nicely written anecdotes.

 _Universities, while sometimes performing valuable research, are constantly
wasting huge sums of money. Much of this money comes from loading up
17-to-21-year-olds with crippling student loans._

Universities are constantly wasting huge sums of money? How and where? I'd
like to see some citations please. And why is the student loan system a
criticism of the university rather than the financial aid system currently
practiced in the US. Awfully muddled thinking here.

 _Libraries are famously impartial and nonjudgmental, and have no agenda other
than to provide equitable access to information to anyone who desires it. Most
university departments are rife with ideology and are hostile to conflicting
views._

I'm going to ignore this bit which sounds suspiciously like right-wing
propaganda.

 _Libraries are open and free to everyone. What they do only improves people’s
prospects. The primary purpose of universities, granting credentials, is by
definition exclusionary. They improve the prospects of a few at the expense of
others, by fostering an environment where people are expected to have degrees
before they can do anything of value, and erecting unnecessary barriers to
individual prosperity._

This is a laughably poor argument. Who says people are expected to have
degrees before they can do anything of value? Many of the most important
innovators of our times do _not_ have college degrees. And certainly nobody is
erecting an unnecessary barrier to "individual prosperity".

If society or more specifically big business values college degrees, this
isn't an indictment of the university itself and the solution certainly isn't
to reduce funding so that fewer degrees are given out. Also, it's not a zero-
sum game. Granting certifications to a few doesn't improve their prospects _at
the expense_ of others.

I think it's ironic that the OP used a computer and the internet to publish
his propagandist rant; an action that would've been impossible without all the
academic research into computing and networking systems in the last few
decades. I'd argue that the economic fallout of that research alone has more
than paid back whatever money the US government has invested in universities.

~~~
johnnybgoode

      > terrible article
      > Awfully muddled thinking
      > right-wing propaganda
      > laughably poor argument
      > propagandist rant
    

All of the above were unnecessary. I'll address the rest of your comment now.

    
    
      > First, there's an implicit value judgement that "serving the poor" is better than serving the "middle class".
    

Typically, when cuts are being made, people across the political spectrum
prefer to cut services for the middle class before cutting services for the
poor. Most people agree that cutting services for the poor is a last resort. I
am not arguing here that this is necessarily correct or that you have to
agree, but that is the reason for the emphasis on "serving the poor" when
discussing cuts to government programs.

    
    
      > Universities are constantly wasting huge sums of money?
    

Administration costs, questionable research, credentialing, etc. That huge
increase in tuition costs is going somewhere, isn't it?

    
    
      > And why is the student loan system a criticism of the university rather than the financial aid system currently practiced in the US.
    

They are part of the same system. The connection between the increase in
student loan limits and the increase in student tuition has been noted many
times. See elsewhere in this thread.

    
    
      > Who says people are expected to have degrees before they can do anything of value? Many of the most important innovators of our times do not have college degrees. And certainly nobody is erecting an unnecessary barrier to "individual prosperity".
    

In addition to what monochrome and yummyfajitas have said, anywhere you look,
you can find job listings for relatively simple, entry-level positions that
unnecessarily require university degrees. Ever since we started pushing the
idea that _everyone_ should go to college, we've seen a signaling arms race
where you'd better get a college degree or face being passed over for someone
else who did -- whether or not the job really needed someone with a degree.
This is the unnecessary barrier. Now you have to spend money and time to get a
degree just to keep up. If you can't do that, you're worse off.

Yes, many great innovators do not have college degrees. They help prove my
point.

    
    
      > Granting certifications to a few doesn't improve their prospects at the expense of others.
    

Of course it does. yummyfajitas has covered this already.

    
    
      > would've been impossible without all the academic research into computing and networking systems in the last few decades
    

You're suggesting the only possible way to do this kind of research is through
the university system as currently structured. This is an outlandish,
unsupported claim, and you denigrate the people who performed this research by
claiming they could only have done it within the modern university system.

~~~
microarchitect
Hmm. I think is a poor article because it lacks depth and simply makes a bunch
of assertions many of which don't even follow from the premises in the article
itself. I might have refrained from saying so explicitly had I thought you
were actually interested in exploring the question and were gathering
information, but it seemed to me that you've made up your mind and are working
backwards from your conclusion.

You haven't really addressed my first point. What's the evidence that
libraries serve the poor more than universities? I was trying to point out
that we can make all the assertions we want, but none of them might be true,
so we need to guided by data not opinions or anecdotes. You seem to have
missed this point.

 _Administration costs, questionable research, credentialing, etc. That huge
increase in tuition costs is going somewhere, isn't it?_

My understanding is that tuition is rising _because_ of university funding
being cut. In fact, some of the first few articles when you google for this
are [1, 2, 3] which clearly couple tuition increases with budget cuts. Are you
not aware of this?

Are you seriously claiming that university tuition is being increased simply
to fund "questionable research" etc.?

 _This is the unnecessary barrier. Now you have to spend money and time to get
a degree just to keep up. If you can't do that, you're worse off._

This is a product of the economic system we live and I fail to see how
reducing university funding will solve this problem.

 _Yes, many great innovators do not have college degrees. They help prove my
point._

No, I don't think it proves your point. You said people can't do anything of
value without a college degree and the existence of people who have done
things of value without a degree disproves your point.

 _Of course it does. yummyfajitas has covered this already._

yummyfajita's claim, if valid, is a much weaker one than yours.

 _You're suggesting the only possible way to do this kind of research is
through the university system as currently structured. This is an outlandish,
unsupported claim, and you denigrate the people who performed this research by
claiming they could only have done it within the modern university system._

That's not what I'm claiming. What I said was that given that this happened,
that research has already more than paid for itself.

If you want to claim all of this research could have been done in some
different setting (which you haven't specified), that might or might not be
true depending on what you're proposing.

I'm skeptical though that a system that eschews public funding of research
will work better than the current one. I think it's not a coincidence that the
US is the pre-eminent leader in high-technology research and also houses some
of the best graduate schools in the world.

[1]
[http://www.highereducation.org/reports/affordability_supplem...](http://www.highereducation.org/reports/affordability_supplement/affordability_1.shtml)
[2] [http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/feb/01/florida-
college-u...](http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/feb/01/florida-college-
university-students-to-pay-8/?partner=RSS) [3]
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/nyregion/cuny-board-
approv...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/nyregion/cuny-board-approves-
tuition-increases.html)

~~~
johnnybgoode

      > What's the evidence that libraries serve the poor more than universities?
    

I take it you've agreed universities are skewed towards the middle class and
higher in terms of direct enrollment (and this is easily verifiable). To
counter this, you talked about _indirect_ effects:

    
    
      > Maybe serving the middle class by producing a highly qualified workforce eventually helps the poor more than just throwing money at libraries.
    

How can you prove this? I don't think it's possible, but if you can I'm all
ears.

    
    
      > Are you seriously claiming that university tuition is being increased simply to fund "questionable research" etc.?
    

I'm claiming _one_ of the reasons university tuition is being increased is
that we're in an environment where degrees are seen as being necessary,
whether or not they are. In other words, degrees are being treated as an
_inelastic good_. Therefore students are willing to pay whatever they can
afford. As student loan limits increase, what students can afford to pay
increases, so tuition increases as well. If even part of the tuition increases
come from this, and your college president is making $1 million/year, I think
it's fair to call that waste.

    
    
      > This is a product of the economic system we live and I fail to see how reducing university funding will solve this problem.
    

It's a product of the system we live in because we created and subsidized that
system. Lowering the subsidy is the first step to solving the problem.
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3608680>

    
    
      > You said people can't do anything of value without a college degree
    

This is completely false. I did not say anything of the kind. In fact, I'm
making the _exact opposite point_ , so now I'm wondering if you understood
what I was saying at all. I said universities are "fostering an environment
where people are expected to have degrees before they can do anything of
value".

    
    
      > yummyfajita's claim, if valid, is a much weaker one than yours.
    

No, I was referring to this post:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3608628>

yummyfajitas directly counters the same claim I was referring to.

    
    
      > That's not what I'm claiming.
    

No, that is exactly what you claimed. You said, word-for-word, that it
"would've been impossible [for me to publish the article] without all the
academic research into computing and networking systems in the last few
decades".

    
    
      > If you want to claim all of this research could have been done in some different setting
    

Yes, I'm claiming there is more than one way to do research. Your claim, that
what was done was the only possible way to do it, is extraordinary to me. And
again, that is what you're claiming when you say it "would've been impossible"
for me to publish an article on the internet.

------
yequalsx
The article is, at best, heavy on the hyperbole and at worst factually wrong.
The first sentence is:

"So, California is cutting library funding instead of, you know, anything
else."

The state budget has forced cuts in many departments. We're talking a $12
million cut to libraries. Higher education has been cut hundreds of millions
of dollars.

The article then goes on to claim that higher education serve poor people "
_at best, tend to do this indirectly, if at all._ " The next sentence says "
_Most university students and professors are already middle class or higher._
" If not all university students are middle class or higher then it is
benefitting lower class students. Why say " _if at all_ " when the next
sentence implies that some poor people are helped? Does the author want
professors to be poor? Of course most professors are middle class or higher. I
expect all of them to be.

Then there is this statement: " _The primary purpose of universities, granting
credentials, is by definition exclusionary._ " This sentence, together with
the sentence before it, suggests the author thinks this is a bad thing. Some
students fail out of engineering. This is a good thing because not everyone is
cut out for this type of work.

Libraries should be open for everyone. Universities should not grant degrees
to everyone. The functions of libraries and universities are disparate. It's
fine to think one is more important than the other. It's sloppy to not take
into consideration the differences in focus between the two entities.

------
possibilistic
I couldn't have learned necessary hands-on chemistry and biology from a
library. Good technique can't be read about; it must simply be learned in the
laboratory from repeated mistakes. After the hand-holding freshman year, half
of the chem/bio curriculum is dedicated to working independently, in the lab,
under time constraints and pressure.

Theory can be learned from a book, but it's not necessarily easy for everyone.
Only highly-motivated self-learners can teach themselves a subject, and then
they must take on the additional work required to cut through "information
space" to find exactly the texts they need. I don't think even a quarter of
university students today have the capacity to learn in this manner,
completely detached from the university system.

CS students are very lucky. We have mailing lists, IRC, HN/proggit,
stackoverflow, good tools, documentation and tutorials freely accessible.
These resources aren't as plentiful or accessible for other STEM majors.
Outside of a few IRC channels, they don't even exist for chem/bio. (You can't
cite databases--they are too complicated for new learners.)

If we want a more autodidactic society, a lot of changes have to be made to
early childhood education. Additionally, we have to provide a lot of tools
(guided curriculum to keep learners on track, etc.) to support this manner of
learning.

~~~
johnnybgoode
I agree hands-on learning in a lab is important. I'm not suggesting everyone
should stop this and only read books instead. But learning in a lab doesn't
need to be tied to a $100,000-$200,000 four-year university degree program. As
a society, we should be able to make this much more accessible. (I don't mean
we have to literally put labs in libraries. I mean everyone should be able to
learn this way cheaply, in the same spirit that a library makes information
accessible for free.)

 _CS students are very lucky. We have mailing lists, IRC, HN/proggit,
stackoverflow, good tools, documentation and tutorials freely accessible.
These resources aren't as plentiful or accessible for other STEM majors._

You're right, and we should fix that. People interested in other STEM fields
shouldn't be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars and four years to
gain access to this knowledge.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_People interested in other STEM fields shouldn't be forced to spend tens of
thousands of dollars and four years to gain access to this knowledge._

They don't. The vast majority of my physics knowledge was gained for a few
hundred bucks, most of it going to whoever publishes $MAJOR_PHYSICS_TOPIC, by
Landau and Lifshitz.

What I paid $30-40k for was certification that I had this knowledge.

We really need to separate certification/credentialing from education. This is
the main thing that will allow innovation in education - people need to buy
the credential, and since it's bundled with education, they have no choice but
to buy unnecessary education.

~~~
johnnybgoode
_We really need to separate certification/credentialing from education._

Agreed. I was giving possibilistic the benefit of the doubt. If some need
access to a lab to fully learn a subject, that's something that should be
addressed. If not, great.

~~~
johnnybgoode
Proof that I agree: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=788702>

------
Lendal
Good article. Unfortunately while reading it, it's difficult to ignore the
fact that neither of these should be cut at all before cuts are made to
overseas military campaigns, CIA, war on drugs, DHS, corporate welfare,
cronyism, etc. etc.

~~~
bmj
Except the article is about a state cutting library funding. While California
likely sends a fair amount of tax dollars to Washington, D.C., I'm fairly sure
their state coffers are directly funding military campaigns and the DHS.

* Edit: grammar

------
rdl
I think a lot of the argument for public funding of universities (and for K-12
education, even) is that public goods are created by having a highly educated
population (workforce, voters, etc.)

To the extent that university education produces private goods (specific
career training, credentials, etc.) there is a lot weaker argument for public
funding.

The argument for public funding of universities is mostly not about it being a
social safety net or producing equality of opportunity, at least not before
the early 1990s or so, so that university students are generally from middle
class or higher isn't as relevant.

~~~
sliverstorm
Ironically, what do the best libraries traditionally contain? Works created by
highly educated individuals.

Yes, you will always have your pulp fiction, but if a library's job is to
disseminate knowledge to the masses, doesn't that make libraries reliant on a
source to develop that knowledge?

~~~
Volpe
True... that would be relevant if the world began and ended on the borders of
california...

------
chaostheory
Given the skyrocketing costs of university education, I would think that there
was a lot of waste to be found there.

Still I agree with another commenter. The real issue is why we spend so much
money subsidizing corporations as well as our foreign adventures and the drug
war. All of which are not sustainable in the long run.

------
pbnjay
Hate to break it to you, but Universities also employ a LOT of trade workers
as well, it's not all academics and students. I think it would be fair to say
that cutting a similar amount of funding from the california university system
would result in a similar number of janitorial, HVAC, maintenance,
landscaping, administrative, _librarian_, technology support, and other job
losses.

Sure, cutting something as important as state libraries sucks, but you'd be
pretty naive to think that shifting the cuts to any other sector wouldn't
result in the same amount of job losses.

------
apedley
Libraries have a short life left. I don't know many people who go to them
anymore considering the vast amounts of information on the Internet and now
eReaders.

Libraries may offer other services than just the loaning of books and dvd's
but in that case community centers will appear or other businesses to fill
those needs.

I know some people don't have access to the internet or a computer but that is
changing. I don't think libraries will disappear overnight but they are going
(as we know them).

------
keithvan
I'm confused as to the popularity of this article, given California has cut
funding to both universities _and_ public libraries. It's not a zero-sum game;
usually funding for both public goods follow hand in hand. Not to mention
_university libraries_ , a class of their own.

------
twiceaday
I feel like access to people in the field is _much_ more valuable than access
to books on the subject.

------
feralchimp
It's been reported that a key factor in the rising end-user cost of State
college tuition is that states are already deeply cutting this funding.

------
firefoxman1
Yeah, higher tuition is exactly what I wanted. There's a reason state schools
are so much cheaper than private: _state funding._

As much as I love libraries, I hardly visit one thanks to the thousands
(millions?) of public domain books I can get _free_ straight to my Kindle. The
only thing I would want to visit a library for would be books like O'Reilly
books, but my college pays a subscription to Safari Books that allows students
access to literally thousands of such books completely free; O'Reilly, Apress,
etc. so my thirst is quenched for now. The beauty is that as soon as a new
book is published, it's on the site. And there aren't HTML3 books from the
90's still wasting (virtual) shelf space like my library.

Random thought, but that could be the future of the library. What if a little
bit of tax money went toward an online directory like Safari Books instead of
a huge expensive library building? Always updated, easy access, and a much
wider selection? I'd go for it. I guess baby boomers wouldn't though.

~~~
learc83
>state funding

Indirect state (and federal) funding, in the form of scholarships, grants, and
loans, is one of the reasons tuition is so high in the first place.

If student loans weren't so plentiful colleges wouldn't cost 10-50k a year,
because no one would pay.

~~~
Joakal
Some more parts of the equation; deregulation, unemployment pressures, some
job degrees aren't helpful, heavy cultural emphasis on degrees to be
successful, culture of short-term thinking and lack of financial education.

~~~
firefoxman1
_"heavy cultural emphasis on degrees to be successful, culture of short-term
thinking and lack of financial education."_

Wow, I'm glad there are others that realize this. I guess hacker news would be
the place to find independent thinkers like yourself. One other I would add
is:

Lack of school counselors, teachers, parents, etc. that believe
entrepreneurship is a viable career option.

~~~
learc83
>Lack of school counselors, teachers, parents, etc. that believe
entrepreneurship is a viable career option.

Excellent point. Since kindergarten, when I tried to sell some crafts I made
during play time to the other kids, I've been pulled towards entrepreneurship,
but going through school you are eventually led to believe that running your
own business isn't an option.

It's not that anyone ever sat me down and told me that I couldn't be an
entrepreneur, but it's never discussed as a possibility.

~~~
johnnybgoode
It looks like this whole story was manually pushed off the HN front page for
some reason (or it was flagged and the sorting algorithm takes this into
account?), but I just wanted to say while I'm here that I was really glad to
read this particular subthread.

------
twelvechairs
Is it really worth comparing them so simplistically? This is a point-of-view
from one side, pointing at a few flaws (of many, ignoring the positives) of
universities, and a few positives (of many, ignoring the flaws) of libraries.

'Comparisons are odious' as they say....

------
sliverstorm
_Yes, university funding has already seen some cuts, but I’d rather see more
cuts to universities and fewer cuts to libraries. They’re not the same thing._

Of course they are not the same thing. So why are we comparing them as if they
were? Rather than identifying a library's strengths and comparing that
directly to universities, you should identify a library's strengths and a
university's strengths, and compare the two sets.

~~~
johnnybgoode
Respectfully, I don't think I've done what you say I've done. I say "they're
not the same thing" because, as I said in the post, a lot of people lump them
together as "investing in knowledge for society" or the like.

I didn't set out to identify a library's strengths. I believe many of the
university's supposed strengths are actually better applicable to libraries.

~~~
wtvanhest
I'm not sure if universities should have their funding cut but libraries seem
very foolish to keep funding. Wouldn't it be better to invest all the money
currently spent on libraries in to an online library? Imagine the amount of
information we could have easy access to?

~~~
johnnybgoode
The top story on Hacker News right now,
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3607217> (also the link I start the post
with), explains one of the problems with doing that. As many important
functions move online, the library is one place someone without a computer and
computer skills can use to gain access to the online world.

Libraries also provide a meeting place for the community, access to
librarians, and many free classes.

I do agree it makes less sense now for libraries to have large physical
collections. The shift to an online library seems inevitable there. But access
to this from local libraries is still important.

~~~
wtvanhest
They should at least reduce the size, eliminate the books and just have
computers.

------
nnnnni
Good point. UCLA and its ilk are famous enough, it'd serve the public much
better to fund public services like libraries.

------
marshray
Libraries are also a great place to apply for jobs or file your taxes.

------
johnnybgoode
While this post focuses on universities and libraries, and I'm serious about
preferring university cuts to library cuts, obviously there are plenty of
other things that could probably be cut first.

~~~
antics
If there are plenty of other things to cut first, why are we comparing the
two? Why not complain that they should cut something else instead of
universities?

I know the answer to this, and it makes me a bit sad. It's easy for Americans
to resent their university system because, at least in CS, it is arguable that
they don't actually need it. In some cases, it even _hurts_ American kids. But
before we all jump on this bandwagon (again) let's consider that we are
perhaps being a bit myopic.

In the first place, libraries are a great repository of knowledge. But
knowledge does not equal production, and whether you or I or anyone else here
wants to admit it, a _tremendous_ amount of stuff has been invented, either
totally, or almost totally, as a component of university research. What would
the world be without transactional databases, A* search, quicksort,
cryptography, the idea of programming languages and so on _ad infinatum_. I
could probably fill up literally a whole book listing the things in CS that
were invented at Universities. There are more for other fields. You might
contend that they all would have been invented eventually, but the question
still remains: what would the world look like if universities had not been
around to foster these ideas? New ideas need friends, and Bell labs can't
employ _all_ the geniuses.

I know, I know, you might contend that most research in universities is either
pointless or close to pointless. Unfortunately, you'd be right. But remember,
that's the Zipf curve. The ideas that are big are _really, really_ big. Not
just in universities, either: ideas produced by universities (for example, the
ones I listed above) have changed the way that the world operates at a
fundamental level, and they continue to do this. And when people come to
universities and engage in work related to it, they carry it home, they carry
it to their job, and they carry it out of the country. This is the way the
world works. I know HN hates this opinion, but it is true.

The other thing I want to mention is that the _vast_ majority of these life-
changing ideas come out of _American_ universities. This is a truly global
system now. People come from all over the world to study here, and when they
do, they sometimes stay here. Do people come to America to study at libraries?
The simple and fact of the matter is that not all talented people are born in
the US, and American universities are a very important gateway to get talented
people into the US. In contrast, the library system is a purely domestic
product for the public that happens to be inside US. I know that you think
that universities don't "help the poor", but consider that this is really only
true for the domestic poor. They are an irreplaceable resource for the poor
outside. I'm not pitting "our" poor against "their" poor, but it's just
something to think about.

The last thing I wanted to point out is that the fact that libraries are a
useful repository of knowledge does not mean that it will make people
productive. Universities are not good at this either, but the consistent
usership of public libraries is pitifully small. The fact that they exist does
not mean that people will use them, since they do exist, and people clearly
mostly do not.

The bottom line is this: your points all have some grain of truth to them, or
they are true outright. But when you don't bother to examine _why_ this system
exists to begin with before you state that another systems should be
preferred, you are undermining your own point in a huge way. In particular, to
say that we should toss an incredibly important and _global_ system for some
domestic system that people don't use is utterly wrong. That all said, the
correct answer is: cut neither, and instead cut part of the military.

~~~
johnnybgoode
To be perfectly clear, I'd love to cut military spending, bailouts, drug war
spending, etc. This article was about a _state_ funding issue, but I'm fine
leaving that aside, since ultimately it's all government spending.

 _In the first place, libraries are a great repository of knowledge. But
knowledge does not equal production, and whether you or I or anyone else here
wants to admit it, a tremendous amount of stuff has been invented, either
totally, or almost totally, as a component of university research._

I don't mind admitting some useful things have come out of universities. But
this doesn't mean we need to continue propping up the university system as it
exists today. You admit it has many flaws. There are plenty of ways to bring
smart people together to learn and do research. They could be nonprofit; they
could be separate from teaching or integrated with it. You could even call
them "universities" if you like. But there's no reason they have to resemble
the current monster.

 _True, most research in universities is either pointless or close to
pointless, but that's the Zipf curve. The ideas that are big are really,
really big._

Sure, but the university system isn't sold that way. We're meant to believe
the research done in universities is all useful.

 _People come from all over the world to study here, and when they do, they
sometimes stay here. Do people come to America to study at libraries?_

Universities have special privileges when it comes to fostering immigration.
If America had world-class research centers with the same privileges, people
would still love to come here and they'd be able to do so.

 _The last thing I wanted to point out is that the fact that libraries are a
useful repository of knowledge does not mean that it will make people
productive. Universities are not good at this either, but the consistent
usership of public libraries is pitifully small. The fact that they exist does
not mean that people will use them._

As you point out, universities aren't very good at this. Maybe a lot of people
won't use libraries, and many who do won't be very productive. But as you
suggested in one of your other points, the instances that pay off _really_ pay
off. And libraries do this much more efficiently than universities, in terms
of money spent. There are a lot of university students burning tens of
thousands of dollars without learning very much.

~~~
antics

      > There are plenty of ways to bring smart people together to learn and do research.
      > They could be nonprofit; they could be separate from teaching or integrated
      > with it. You could even call them "universities" if you like. But there's no
      > reason they have to resemble the current monster.
    

Can you name some ways to actually do this? I'd love to hear about them, but
have never actually seen a system like that. Even if there was though, before
you go yanking money out of the system, you should actually try to replace it.
And that will take time and money, and you will have to convince great
scientists to make the switch, in spite of the fact that they will probably
have less money, less resources, and spend more time doing something other
than interesting research in order to build said system. That's all _really_
hard.

Recently a lot of academics have been pushing for open journals, even going so
far as to boycott closed ones. Even this is fairly controversial. :(

    
    
      > Sure, but the university system isn't sold that way. We're meant to believe
      > the research done in universities is all useful.
    

Sold by whom? Guidance counselors? Other students? I don't believe I've ever
met a professor who thought that all, or even most research, is life-changing,
or even very interesting. I just don't buy that you heard that from a reliable
source.

    
    
      > Universities have special privileges when it comes to fostering immigration.
      > If America had world-class research centers with the same privileges,
      > people would still love to come here and they'd be able to do so.
    

It's not only about privilege: schools are known by foreigners as a system
that allows them to get to the US. In order for this transition to be
effective, you'd have to supplant the educational system, then get everyone to
know about your alternative system.

And besides that, the institutions that do the hiring are incredibly biased
towards American schools. I work for a reasonably prestigious lab, and the
people in charge are (charitably put) deeply suspicious of research from
Chinese and Indian schools. When given a choice, they will hire a PhD from an
American school almost always. Exceptions include University College at
London, Oxford, Cambridge, Utrecht, etc., but it is a vanishingly small list,
and even they I would say are much less likely to be hired.

    
    
      > As you point out, universities aren't very good at this. Maybe a lot of people
      > won't use libraries, and many who do won't be very productive. But
      > as you suggested in one of your other points, the instances that pay
      > off really pay off. And libraries do this much more efficiently than universities, in terms of money spent. There are a lot of
      > university students burning tens of thousands of dollars without learning
      > very much.
    

Oh man, I'd really love to believe that, but I just don't see it. Science is
still pretty much a communal affair, and the mere availability of knowledge
does not make science happen. You need a robust social framework to evolve it.
I just don't see that in libraries.

~~~
johnnybgoode
I hope you're still here!

    
    
      > Can you name some ways to actually do this? I'd love to hear about them, but have never actually seen a system like that.
      > Even if there was though, before you go yanking money out of the system, you should actually try to replace it.
    

All I'm getting at here is that today we have a single university system that
generally operates a certain way (a policy that everyone out of high school
should enter one of them, and at each university, students attend four years
of classes graded A-F, then potentially attend grad school, and the university
also houses researchers/professors), and there's nothing intrinsic to learning
or doing research that requires all of these things. In other words, there
could conceivably be a variety of different institutions that lacked one or
more of the characteristics I mentioned, but it's hard for that to happen when
the current system is so fully entrenched and subsidized. We could see more
research-only labs, more teaching-focused institutions that have their own
unique approaches (a la charter schools, Montessori, etc. in K-12), more
institutions that integrate learning and research in a different way, or other
arrangements I haven't thought of.

One example of something like this is simply universities 100+ years ago, when
not everyone was encouraged to attend university. We all know about places
like Bell Labs and Xerox PARC. I see no reason more variety is not possible.

And you're right, replacing it would be hard, but one reason for that is all
the money going into the system. What you're asking me to do is sort of like
starting a car company while General Motors is being bailed out by the
government. Still possible, I suppose, but more difficult when the other guy
is being subsidized.

    
    
      > Recently a lot of academics have been pushing for open journals, even going so far as to boycott closed ones. Even this is fairly controversial. :(
    

Yes, this just shouldn't be controversial at all. In the context of a library,
where the whole point is that everything is open, it certainly wouldn't make
sense.

    
    
      > Sold by whom? Guidance counselors? Other students? I don't believe I've ever met a professor who thought that all, or even most research, is life-changing, or even very interesting. I just don't buy that you heard that from a reliable source.
    

I'm sure most professors are aware that not all university research is useful.
But in principle, every Ph.D. thesis is supposed to be original and worthy of
publication. We know most of them aren't really so great, but in theory they
meet a certain standard. When you hear people push for more govt. funding for
university research, you won't often hear them say most of it won't be useful.
And anecdotally, I've seen a lot of people who are urged to get a Ph.D.
without regard to the usefulness of what the student would be doing.

    
    
      > It's not only about privilege: schools are known by foreigners as a system that allows them to get to the US. In order for this transition to be effective, you'd have to supplant the educational system, then get everyone to know about your alternative system.
      > And besides that, the institutions that do the hiring are incredibly biased towards American schools.
    

What I mean is that if we had, for example, plenty of world-class research
labs that were able to "hire" people into the country as easily as
universities can admit foreign students, they'd still want to come. The bias
you mention is understandable, but someone who'd worked in an American
research lab wouldn't be affected by the "foreign school research" problem.

    
    
      > Oh man, I'd really love to believe that, but I just don't see it. Science is still pretty much a communal affair, and the mere availability of knowledge does not make science happen. You need a robust social framework to evolve it. I just don't see that in libraries.
    

You're right that it's often important for people to do research together. I'm
just saying there are other ways to bring people together for science. Will
your average local library suddenly become a major scientific center? Probably
not, but I can envision something like a modern-day Library of Alexandria
where great research happens, and I could see something like that being better
than today's universities. Why not?

------
scrod
It's really not that difficult. Adjust the income tax brackets and raise the
rates. Oh yeah, and go flush your disgusting self-serving
libertarian/objectivist philosophy down the drain, too.

