Berkeley Raises $1.1 Billion to Keep Professors From Ivy League

[sakky]

<p>

Then how can you assert so definitively that Berkeley is losing superstars? I said I doubted it, but I honestly don’t know for sure.

</p>

<p>Uh, because this whole Berkeley initiative is specifically targeted towards stopping the exodus of profs who are presumably stars. After all, why would Berkeley want to endow chairs to a bunch of (relatively) mediocre profs? I can only assume that Berkeley is going to endow those chairs for actual stars. </p>

<p>

I think the point of contention lies more in the public vs. private debate. The “exodus” of faculty (which really isn’t very significant) cuts right through the issue of the competition between the public and private sector in the twenty-first century. Berkeley is at the forefront. Clearly the Hewlett foundation sees this too, which is why their immense donation is their “vote of confidence.” Of course, they donated much more to Stanford, but the symbolic action is there.</p>

<p>Notice, also, that top privates lose faculty to one another every year, but it isn’t made out to be such a big deal.

</p>

<p>I disagree. In fact, the top private schools actually make quite big news when they go around ‘raiding’ each other.</p>

<p>As a case in point, when Robert Barro almost left Harvard for Columbia, but then decided not to, that news actually made the NYTimes. That was just one guy, not 30 (in the case of Berkeley). </p>

<p>[Economics</a> All-Star Says He Will Stay With Home Team, After All - New York Times](<a href=“http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE0D71E3DF937A25757C0A96E958260]Economics”>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE0D71E3DF937A25757C0A96E958260)</p>

<p>Furthermore, I don’t necessarily see a public vs. private dichotomy here. I think it has a lot to do with rich schools (whoever they are) vs. poorer schools (whoever they are). Many of the poorer private schools feel that they can’t compete for top faculty with rich schools.</p>