<p>
[quote]
The other choices tend to be the research U's where the facilities often develop from research grants. As pointed out, that is of limited value if the research U is not commited to undergrad education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's the rub. As universities have become commercial enterprises, "research grants" are increasingly just revenue streams as for any other business. A perfect example is Larry Summers' biotech initiative at Harvard. This proposal actually had little support among the science faculty, because it was seen as being a commercial enterprise providing R&D for hire to the health care industry and potentially distracting focus away from teaching science. As universities become more and more "corporate", the researchers become more and more involved in spin-off corporatation.</p>
<p>Consumers should be wary of schools that tout their huge science research funding. I like to use Emory as an example, although they are certainly not alone. If you look at their financial statements, their drug patent and health care revenues dwarf the revenues of their education subsidiaries. This situation legitimately begs the question: is this an educational institution that does research on the side? Or an R&D company that has small subsidiaries teaching a few students on the side? Should these "companies" get tax-free non-profit status?</p>