<p>
[quote]
This doesn't go against your voucher argument, but I figure some sort of argument could be made that by providing more opportunities of graduate-level research, you, in turn, provide more opportunities for undergraduate research which falls in line with the university's original goal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But again, the question is, why couldn't that be handled within a private framework via a voucher system? For example, research funds to Stanford grad students will help the Stanford undergrad system and Californians who are going to Stanford for undergrad via a voucher system would benefit. </p>
<p>Hence, what you are proposing is actually a reason in favor of a voucher system. Let's say that Stanford all of a sudden becomes unusually successful in winning lots of research grants, relative to the state schools. Right now, as it stands, Californians who want to get a tuition subsidy only get it at a state school, which means that they would be financially deterred from going to the school that has been winning the most research grants. But under a voucher system, Californians would be able to use their vouchers to study undergrad at whichever school the research grants happen to be won, whether it's a public or private school. Hence, overall economic efficiency actually increases because people have more choices and hence a greater chance of finding their optimal match. </p>
<p>More generally speaking, it would also force the state schools to work hard to become more competitive. One of my greatest frustrations with the Berkeley administration is its complacency, which I am sure is partly informed by the fact that Berkeley knows that its state tuition subsidy will mean that it always has a pool of willing in-state students who are not rich enough to afford a private school (but not poor enough to get good aid). But if those students could actually get a subsidy to go to a private school like Stanford or Caltech, then Berkeley would have to work harder to compete for those students, then Berkeley would actually be spurred to fix some of its long-standing problems (like impaction of majors).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, don't public universities have some control exerted upon them by their state governments? It's very likely the government likes having a bit of control over the schools, and it's unlikely that any private university would want to open any sort of door to allow possible governmental pressure in?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To be clear, a private system doesn't mean no government involvement whatsoever. When Adam Smith invoked laissez-fair to describe free markets, he never said that the government had no role to play at all. In fact, the government always has key roles to play in any private market: it serves to regulate standards, enforce contracts, and ensure that the markets do not dissolve. A previous poster alluded to this: the government is not an end-provider of food, but it does serve to regulate the quality of the food and provides an avenue for consumers to sue producers if food makes them sick. </p>
<p>Hence, the state could devise a set of educational standards regarding what a bachelor's degree should include, but then provide wide leeway regarding how those standards are met within the market. The point is, government doesn't necessarily need to provide the service itself.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, I think this also questions what the fundamental job of a public university is. Is it to provide a world-class education to it's state's students, or is it to provide as good an education as possible to as many of it's citizens as it can
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely. But I would also unpack that statement. When you say "...to provide a world-class education to it's state's students", it is important to point out that that education is not provided to all, or even most, of the state's students. Let's face it. The vast vast majority of Californians will never get to go to Berkeley or UCLA because they simply can't get in. Hence, you are really only providing a top education to a small fraction of your state's students. I think it is entirely fair for the taxpayers to ask why they should all have to pay for something that most of them will never even be allowed to use. It might be one thing to pay for something that you don't use, but that you could use. {For example, I may have to pay taxes for a road that I never use, but at least I could use it if I wanted to. In this case, I am paying taxes for a road that I'm not even allowed to use. } </p>
<p>Now, of course, one might argue that while most people won't be allowed to go to Berkeley or UCLA, at least everybody is given the chance to compete to go to Berkeley or UCLA. Sure, but then how exactly is that different from people competing to get into Stanford or Caltech? If it isn't different, then why shouldn't state subsidies be used to pay for tuition for the latter? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Funny you mention Lederberg--he did his original Nobel work at Wisconsin. He actually earned the Nobel while there in 1958.</p>
<p>In 1947, he was appointed Assistant Professor of Genetics at the University of Wisconsin, where he was promoted to Associate Professor in 1950 and Professor in 1954. He organized the Department of Medical Genetics in 1957, of which he was Chairman during 1957-1958.</p>
<p>Stanford University Medical School entrusted to him the organization of its Department of Genetics and appointed him Professor and Executive Head in 1959. Since 1962, he has been Director of the Kennedy Laboratories for Molecular Medicine.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what exactly is your point? Nobody has ever denied that public schools do strong research. But nobody has ever showed that public schools do better research than private schools. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Private schools are also taxpayer subsidized by being tax free on both their property and endowment. That is a huge subsidy to the large endowment schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And so are public schools. They don't pay taxes on their property. They don't pay taxes on their endowment. That is also a huge subsidy for them. Hence, it's a wash.</p>
<p>Besides, I don't see the relevance of this line of inquiry anyway. Private (and public) schools are tax-free because they are nonprofit organizations. It's that simple. Nobody is seriously proposing that we tax the Gates Foundation or the Ford Foundation or the US Red Cross. </p>
<p>Now, where I might agree with you is that private schools often times have larger endowments than do public schools and hence enjoy a larger numerical tax subsidy in that sense. But hey, that's not the fault of the private schools. That just means that the public schools should be doing a better job of building a bigger endowment. The University of Michigan has enjoyed the highest endowment percentage growth rate of any school in the country in the last 20 years, even higher than any of the Ivies, MIT, or Stanford. Michigan pays precisely zero taxes on that endowment. Other public schools should also be building an endowment like Michigan is, and if they do not, hey, they have nobody to blame but themselves. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The research is neither better nor worse on average at public or private
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. Then you should agree with me that there is no reason to prefer public schools * a priori* when it comes to research expenditures.</p>