That’s the title of a Slate article documenting the implications of recent policy actions implemented in the state of Wisconsin.
What’s at stake here is the total loss of the public research university. Anyone with functioning eyes and a pulse knows that most U.S. states barely fund their universities anymore, relying instead on ballooning tuition and big donors, both private and corporate. …
But the situation in Wisconsin is worse than your garden-variety corporatization. You might assume it’s no big deal for superstar researchers to be competed for, hired, and fired like executives—and for everyone else to “just get a better job” if they don’t like what they’ve got. That might be how it works at your job, if you are lucky enough to have one. I understand this impulse to look around at your own likely weak labor protections, and wonder why those obnoxious hoity-toity professors think they deserve better than you.
But academics don’t want tenure because they think they’re better or smarter than you. Academics, whether they have it or not, want some form of tenure to exist to protect the integrity of the knowledge that is produced, preserved, and disseminated.
Wisconsin professors simply do not want research limited by the whims of 18 people appointed by a governor with an openly stated anti-education agenda. And you shouldn’t, either. Think university research doesn’t affect you? You’re wrong. Hundreds of technological and social advances that you depend upon have been made thanks to the research of some brainiac at some university somewhere: what kind of cities to plan; how (and where) to alleviate poverty and hunger; what kind of diseases to treat; what kind of drugs to invent (or make obsolete); what kind of bridges and roads to build (and where). If professors are not protected from disagreeing with the agenda of their “bosses”—whether that be Dow Chemical, Gov. Walker, or President Trump—the consequences will go far beyond one person’s paycheck.
Perhaps it’s not too late for me to start writing on how, despite slower than expected employment growth (and recent negative growth), the Wisconsin economy is actually doing just great.
What do tech leaders think? From the Wisconsin State Journal:
A $250 million cut in state funding to the University of Wisconsin System over the next two years could do great harm to Wisconsin’s economy, Madison area tech leaders said.
…
“The (technology) ecosystem just gets richer and stronger as time goes by,” said entrepreneur Sikes, who has started several art-related businesses. But $58.9 million worth of “severe” cuts to the UW-Madison budget, authorized by the Legislature and Gov. Scott Walker, are “a dark cloud,” she added. “Everybody in this room is affected.”
“To me, that is the biggest thing that happened in the last year,” said Neis, whose firm focuses on early-stage companies. “I have tremendous concerns about the future of the university and the impact of the depth of the cuts.”
Recruiting and retaining the best faculty members are important for innovation to continue, said Neis. “It is such a powerful force in this ecosystem,” he said.
“The changes won’t be felt right away,” he said. Rather, the impact on research projects might be felt over the course of a decade. “And I’m worried, two years out, that some could argue that, ‘See, the sky didn’t fall, everything’s OK,’ when, in fact, it is falling and we just don’t notice it, yet.”
More concretely, we have evidence that faster growth is associated with a larger stock of human capital.
Source: Berger-Fisher (2013).
In this regard, I find it interesting that in the drive to defund the University of Wisconsin system, the state seems to be moving in the exact opposite direction of re-orienting the Wisconsin economy away from manufacturing industries that are experiencing increasing competition from abroad, and slowing demand growth from at home.
I find it interesting that after gutting the flagship research university in the state, de-funding public schools, and leaving state road funding in a mess, there has been a mass exodus of GOP legislators announcing they will not seek re-election, including Reps. John Murtha, R-Baldwin; David Heaton, R-Wausau; Dean Knudson, R-Hudson; and Tom Larson, R-Colfax. And just yesterday, State Sen. and State Senate President Mary Lazich, R-New Berlin announced she will not seek reelection. I am sure the next batch will claim they had nothing to do with creating the current state of affairs, but will offer the same snake oil of tax cuts aimed at the top 1% and doing away with environmental regulations as a solution to get the state’s economy going.
Samuel says: “…tax cuts aimed at the top 1% and doing away with environmental regulations as a solution to get the state’s economy going.”
The top 1% pay about half of federal income taxes. What do you think they do with the rest? They either invest it or spend it. And, excessive environmental regulations have destroyed jobs and made us poorer.
“And, excessive environmental regulations have destroyed jobs and made us poorer.”
peak, that is a fantasy statement. ideology. it ignores the reality. until the 70’s and 80’s, we had tremendous problems with respect to environmental pollution. our standard of living has improved greatly since environmental regulations became enforced. go visit beijing to understand the conditions you desire a return to.
The reality is you didn’t understand what I said, yet again. Excessive environmental regulations have raised the cost of production, slowed economic growth, and reduced living standards.
It makes no sense when the cost of a particular regulation exceeds the benefit, and the totality of regulations are a net negative, to a large extent, particularly in an ongoing depression.
Stronger economic growth, or a larger economy, can absorb more regulations, which we saw in the ’80s and ’90s.
“Excessive environmental regulations have raised the cost of production, slowed economic growth, and reduced living standards.”
my standard of living, with respect to the environment today compared to when i was growing up, is drastically improved. you argue “excessive”, but that is not the case. peak, i grew up in the area and time of brownfield sites, acid rain, lousy drinking water and industrial polluted air. without the regulations of the past few decades, which you despise as excessive, my standard of living would have been greatly reduced. in particular my life expectancy would have been much lower. you may discount the value of an additional 20 years of my life, but i certainly do not. your commentary either illustrates a lack of understanding of the true status of environmental issues in this country, or the serendipity of not having lived in environmentally compromised areas. most people have no issue with an increased cost of production and slowed economic growth if the outcome is a longer and healthier life. that is the cost-benefit analysis you fail to understand.
So, you want much more environmental regulations, regardless of the impact on the economy.
How do you know being much poorer will improve and extend your life?
your assumption that economic regulations automatically results in a poorer economy are not backed up by data. it is an ideological statement of “fact,” unsupported. by your account, the clean water act would be considered an expensive, unnecessary, over regulation of the environment which destroyed the economy. the reality is counter to your ideology.
So, the top 1% pays half the income tax, they earn 80 to 90 percent of the discretionary income
Maybe, we should ban the top 1% and people like you can take up the slack 🙂
Personally I would be more than happy to switch and get that $2 million annual income – even if we went back to the old Nixon era 70% top tax rates I would be happy to relieve those “poor” rich people of their “burden”.
States must balance their budgets. They can raise taxes if the residents and economy permit. They can cut costs where necessary. They can shift resources as politics dictate. This is an interesting analysis of state funding for all colleges and universities. Figure 5 is very telling as to the shifting of resources away from higher education. https://www.amacad.org/multimedia/pdfs/publications/researchpapersmonographs/PublicResearchUniv_ChangesInStateFunding.pdf
Figure 6 is also quite telling. Only three states have had increases in state funding for higher education since 2008. Illinois is significantly higher than the rest of the U.S. Ironically, with respect to the argument that such state funding makes the employment market stronger, Illinois has one of the highest unemployment rates in the U.S. http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
Overall, this study shows that funding for higher education has taken a back seat to funding for Medicaid and corrections (prisons). It’s the reality that fewer people are paying for more people. And even when state spending for education has increased, the economic results haven’t been spectacular. Perhaps our priorities are wrong. Or perhaps those who say you can have it all… fund it all… are simply wrong.
Memo: one factor often overlooked is endowments. The University of Wisconsin (and many other major universities) has seen its endowment more than double since 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment
The destruction of US academia due to drastic cuts in university funding (coinciding with drastic tax cuts for the rich) is not unique to Winsconsin. This is standard policies of GOP since Reagan. Even though the more drastic % cuts may have some immediate observable effects; the bigger damage is occurring within a much longer time frame (way beyond the careers of politicians responsible). What happens when academic jobs become so unattractive that only the weakest of students would dream of pursuing a career as Professor? When the only people who want to become Professors are those who couldn’t possibly find a job anywhere else, how good will out world renowned education system be? Will our research universities be able to continue being world class and cutting edge? The US used its strength after WW2 to set up a system that attracted the greatest talents from around to our research universities. As a result the US was always at the cutting edge of new developments and knowledge – and became the worlds only superpower. That status has been taken for granted even as we slowly have eroded its foundation. It will take a few generations to degrade that status, and it is doubtful that it can be regenerated within a few generations, if at all.
Not all university research projects are of equal value or use. http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/10/22/most-government-sponsored-research-is-simply-wasteful-but-truthy-is-menacing-to-boot/#64b0179c62bb
There are $millions of more examples.
That is irrelevant for the issue discussed. The so-called (and some it is true) “waste” in research is not being solved by removing tenure. Indeed one could make the argument that waste (as a % of the total) in research will be drastically increased if you remove tenure and reduce the quality of those conducting the research. No greater chance of wasting research dollar than having it performed by someone who is not qualified. Or are you presuming that 18 politically appointed non-experts will be able to judge and approve the quality of research such as to reduce “waste”?
The removal of tenure will make the university much less competitive in the fight for attracting the best talent. Think of it as if you were the job applicant. If you can choose between two identical job offers – one with, and one without tenure – what would you do? So even if UW is competing against another public university suffering from similarly draconian budget cuts (and associated academic deterioration) it would now need to sweeten the offer drastically to be competitive for a real talented faculty candidate.
By the way tenure is legally “property”, and if the government want to rob people of their property it has to compensate them. So it is not likely that they will be able to take away tenure from currently tenured faculty.
I think the best argument for tenure can be summarized as “protecting people who produce true but controversial knowledge.”
The problem with that argument is that the people actually protected by tenure are a small set of those who produce true but controversial information. For example, almost all of the staff functions of every for-profit company (i.e. finance, legal, HR) also produce true but controversial knowledge. But the owners of those companies — who are the beneficiaries of that true but controversial knowledge — do nothing to protect the producers of that information from their agents (i.e. management) who don;t want the controversy. What is it about these academic jobs that should make us (as the owners of these public universities) want to grant tenure when we (as owners of publicly traded for-profit companies) clearly don’t for private-sector jobs?
I think the difference is that the management of the organizations involved is different. Public universities are run by states, so you get the whole political process, where small but vocal or influential minorities can affect change. Private companies are run by a management board whose incentives are highly aligned with the profit-making motive of the owners. Put another way, if the HR department at GE doesn’t deserve tenure, neither do the professors at the University of Wisconsin, and the difference in the result is driven by the vagaries of politics. I think that’s the best argument against tenure.
I think the best rebuttal to that argument is to point out that the nature of politics makes professors subject to particularly irrational whims that don;t frequently affect private, for-profit organizations. To concoct an illustrative story, suppose that an employee publicly posts something outrageous that is utterly unrelated to the employee’s job and does so only using his or her own computer and time. The private employer will probably do nothing, though it may depend on the industry — the more connected with the government, the more likely it will take action. But there’s probably a different dynamic for the university professor: “THIS is the kind of person teaching your kids! HE is in a position to be promulgating this stuff from a publicly provided podium!” The significant possibility of partisan witch-hunts is probably a legitimate difference.
But then again there is the question of fit. Does this argument really fit just university professors? How about high school teachers? I don’t really see a difference there, because the argument has moved somewhat away from the true but controversial knowledge that the university professor or HR director produces as part of the job, and has moved to the irrelevant but offensive stuff that people produce regardless of occupation.
So, regardless of what reason is espoused, it seems like those arguments are over-inclusive — they include people to whom tenure would not apply, at least in the arguments that tenure’s proponents make.
The owners of a private company have the exclusive goal of making as big a profit as they possibly can. If the company produces knowledge that gets in the way of making more profit, it is clearly in the interest of management as well as owners (shareholders) to suppress that knowledge.
The purpose of society is not profit but progress (as defined by the majority, in a democratic process). There is no such thing as true knowledge “getting in the way” of progress, so increased knowledge is always aligned with the goals of better “designs” for societal progress. On the other hand management (politicians) often do not have the same goals as the owners (majority) of society. Because money is so influential in our election processes, the politicians often represent the top 1% who have the money to support their election. So politicians often have a desire to hide certain types of knowledge although that knowledge would be of benefit rather than destructive for the owners of society.
The purpose of tenure is to make sure that knowledge can be produced even if it doesn’t serve the plutocrats and the politicians that serve them.
@ DeDude
Your first paragraph seems to be saying that the case for imposing tenure for staff functions is stronger in private businesses than it is in universities, specifically because of the alignment of management and owners in seeking profits. Thus, I don’t think that point undercuts any of mine.
I think your second point simply affirms that my model adequately describes the public university. I don’t think it draws any kind of distinction against the private sector. Put another way, reaffirming that knowledge-creators in public universities create knowledge that is dangerous for the management of their organizations does nothing to explain why we should protect them without also protecting knowledge-creators in private businesses who create knowledge that is dangerous for the management of their organizations.
Finally, by way of troll-bait, I’ll just note that the main reason most people support the abolition of tenure is the perception that it supports a culture of liberal-progressive conformity. I’d actually love to see any studies on whether that perception is accurate. There’s [plenty of anecdote backing it up, but not much data that I can find.
Max L.
Tenure serves the purpose of allowing knowledge that “management” preferred to have suppressed, to get out. If the purpose of an organization is the common good then tenure becomes essential for its function. Yes if we wanted to force private enterprise from a main goal of making more profit to having the main goal of “common good”, we might argue for the security of “tenure” in that sector too. But then why would any function be provided by the private sector rather than the public sector? I think we all agree that the most we can expect to do in the private sector is to use oversight and punishment to ensure that their blind hunt for more profit is not causing an unacceptable level of damage to the common good.
Yes a lot of people with no real experience with the culture of a university have build up completely wrong ideas about them. All universities have huge internal disputes between tenured faculty regarding issues where the facts do not clearly support one interpretation over another. The only time a monoculture or conformity appears is when the fact simply cannot sustain more than one specific interpretation. So the reason that all the climate scientists are supporting the idea that human release of green house gases has and will continue to cause increased global temperatures, is not a liberal-progressive conspiracy. It is because the facts cannot support any other interpretation. It may be that the facts have a liberal bias and a fact-based institution like a university ends up supporting things that the corporate media labels as “liberal”.
Look at Massachusetts way out there with probably lowest per capita state funding of 4 year colleges. UMass is funded by student fees.
DeDude. “The purpose of society is not profit but progress (as defined by the majority, in a democratic process).”
By whose definition? Yours? Is society a group, tribe, area, nation, culture? Is it homogeneous, secular, religious, pluralistic? It it progress for all or a segment? Is it progress if it destroys tradition? Is it progress if it destroys cohesion? Is it only intellectual progress, but not ethical or moral progress? Is it simply an exercise in finding out how things work?
The purpose of research universities may be intellectual “progress”, but societies exist solely because those involved find more benefits than personal costs. Societies break down when the foundations of those societies are weakened or replaced by things other than what brought the people together in the first place.
So, the New World migration was set off by those in search of religious and personal freedom, not a specific economic or political agenda. By the time of the founding of the U.S., personal and religious freedom were enshrined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Out of personal and economic freedom principles came the economic foundation for free enterprise which then embraced capitalism as the structure best suited to sustain free enterprise and create personal and national wealth. Within the principles of personal and economic freedom came the notion of ethical and moral duties to be both a producer and a giver.
Over time, however, the principle of voluntary cooperation and voluntary sharing has been replaced by forced cooperation and forced sharing. Charity has been replaced with redistribution. Earning and merit has been replaced by envy and equity. The top producers are now vilified for their personal efforts and success. The individual with curiosity, competence and conviction has been replaced by group think and majority rules. Our “society” has become the antithesis of its founding principles.
The great thinkers and innovators of the past did not necessarily seek tenure and safe spaces. They sought improvements to what was. Einstein worked in a patent office. Henry Ford worked out of a garage. Bill Gates worked out of a garage.
Yes, research universities are valuable and contribute to knowledge and improvements. But the fact that great thinkers and innovators could profit from their work and sacrifice is directly in accord with our founding principles. The fact that some tenured professors get carried along for the ride is not.
I have no problem with great thinkers and innovators seeking great personal wealth from their intellectual talents. Those people are taking a risk as they seek an absurdly high reward, within a system that doesn’t (and shouldn’t) also be granting them the safety of tenure. Great rewards should naturally be combined with great risks (no free rides). However, for those uniquely talented individuals who pursue things that are not going to give them great personal monetary rewards, it is natural to shield them against risk (at least if we want to entice talented people to do that work). Alternatively we will find that only the least talented would be willing to fulfill those critically important functions of society.
@ Bruce Hall;
“By whose definition?
As you cited me: “as defined by the majority, in a democratic process”. That can be ugly and messy and leave most people far from satisfied. However, none of the alternatives to democracy seems to work any better.
“societies exist solely because those involved find more benefits than personal costs. Societies break down when the foundations of those societies are weakened”
Actually societies break down when those involved find LESS benefits than personal costs. Societies develop, and as such, norms and “foundations” can be replaced. It may have been the norm to own slaves when the US was founded, but we are still here and our society did not dissolve when that norm was replaced by another more modern view on people from different races.
“Over time, however, the principle of voluntary cooperation and voluntary sharing has been replaced by forced cooperation and forced sharing”
Societies have always had and enforced laws, rules and regulations. You seem to be rather ignorant of the “good old days” you appear to be yearning for. Individuals desires have always been clashing with the common good, and societies will disintegrate if they don’t control those individual who’s activites are harmful. What may be true is that the ways in which sociopathic individuals can do harm to the common good have multiplied, and as such the countermeasures have also multiplied.
DeDude: “Actually societies break down when those involved find LESS benefits than personal costs.”
No, people “trade” for mutual benefit and gain, whether that is a trade for goods or a trade for societal benefits. If the payoff is consistently less than the cost, the trade breaks off or society breaks down. This can be seen in sectors such as education where white males became the scapegoat for every perceived “discrimination”. Title IX would “fix” that. The result, women now outnumber men 60-40 in terms of obtaining degrees. Men are now less able to find work and provide a “traditional” family-oriented foundation (which many find just right). However, when half of a society’s population increasingly becomes educationally disenfranchised and lose their primary societal roles, society begins to fracture. Look around and you may see signs of such fracturing. You might call it “progress”, I call it “problems”.
Oh, wait. I think you were agreeing with me:
Bruce Hall: “…societies exist solely because those involved find more benefits than personal costs.”
DeDude: “Actually societies break down when those involved find LESS benefits than personal costs.”
So, the real issue is whether societies can flourish if those who contribute little increasingly are given “distributions” forced from those who contribute a lot. At what point do the contributors say “screw it”?
“Men are now less able to find work and provide a “traditional” family-oriented foundation (which many find just right). ”
seriously, this sounds like the fool i worked on a construction site with. he had a woman who ran the heavy equipment better than any of the men on the job site, and he acknowledged this fact, but also did everything he could to keep her off the job. he felt the job was more deserving of a “man”, so that he could provide for his family. ignoring the fact the woman was also providing for her family. so this fool promoted an inferior worker (and he was a poor performer), costing this business money in efficiency, simply to promote a cave man mentality. it was pathetic.
Yeah, yeah. Men are fools. Men shouldn’t go to college if it takes the place of a woman. Yada, yada, yada.
The fact that white males no longer can benefit from the exorbitant privilege of being white and male is being mourned by many a white male. However title IX does not scapegoat anybody. It simply requires that nobody can be discriminated against. And surprise; in a fair and equal competition the young males are to immature and distracted to compete academically with females. If those males would stop drinking and watching stupid sports games – and instead concentrate on the academic tasks, they should be able to make it back to 50-50. It is time for the men to stop whining and start working as hard as the goal oriented women. If the traditional family-oriented foundation cannot handle that we give equal opportunities to all people (regardless of sex, race, etc.) then that “foundation” must be very weak and deserve to be replaced with something stronger.
DeDude, perhaps it is the loss of “exorbitant privilege” or perhaps it is a conscious effort on the part of universities to cater to women: http://womenstudies.wisc.edu/
Or perhaps it is the “white, male privilege” meme that has, increasingly, made universities hostile environments for men. It permeates everything from professors’ attitudes in classrooms to personal relationships where male students can be accused of rape and expelled without evidence or real investigation. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jack-montague-expelled-yale-basketball-player-sue-school-over-sex-n538741
Women never use their sexuality to get what they want and become vindictive if they don’t.
About 35% graduate from college. 65% don’t. Why should the 65%, who will earn less on average, subsidize the college education of the 35%? Because the 35% will create jobs for the bottom 65%? Trickle down economics?
In a country with a progressive tax system the low income people don’t do much of the subsidizing. Instead the high income people (including those who make more because they have graduated from college) pay for those subsidies.
The reason you want to keep college affordable for everybody (regardless of parents income) is that you want this country to be competitive with the rest of the world. It is not just a personal tragedy if half the population simply cannot afford to obtain an education that makes full use of their natural talents. We as a society will have lost the benefits of half of our human resources. The rest of the industrialized world has realized that and makes sure that everybody get whatever type of education that will make best use of their natural talents, regardless of financial means.
Since we are now using anecdotal arguments (Baffling: “seriously, this sounds like the fool i worked on a construction site with. he had a woman who ran the heavy equipment better than any of the men on the job site, and he acknowledged this fact, but also did everything he could to keep her off the job. he felt the job was more deserving of a “man”, so that he could provide for his family. ignoring the fact the woman was also providing for her family. so this fool promoted an inferior worker (and he was a poor performer), costing this business money in efficiency, simply to promote a cave man mentality. it was pathetic.’)… I’ll give you an education anecdote:
My sister-in-law is a school principle at a public high school in Orlando. Her son is completing his studies at high school a Catholic high school. He could get a free education at the public school, but she chooses to pay thousands of dollars per year to send him to the Catholic high school. Why? Because the public high schools are half populated by students who have no respect for education … theirs or anyone else’s. She cited statistics that said there were about 2,000 instances of students being disciplined in her high school last year (cursing teachers, throwing objects at teachers, physically assaulting teachers or other students). That compared with 15 at the Catholic high school. Her son is going to Harvard on a full scholarship. Many of his classmates are going to schools like Yale or Duke or the military academies. The public high school “graduates” are joining the ranks of the unemployed 16-29 year-olds.
So, if the students from the Catholic high school go on to college and good careers, are they getting their money’s worth helping to pay for the “free” college where the public high school students will attend and drop out?
Yes, I went to a public high school. We didn’t dare do the things my sister-in-law relates. I worked full time at hard, dirty jobs and went to college classes at night which I paid for by myself… yes, no social life. I entered the military service and spent three years of my spare time getting a masters in business. Now tell me what I will be getting for those who are not willing to sacrifice a little for themselves? Especially those who see it as a chance to skate by for another four years on Uncle Sugar’s dime.
http://www.collegeatlas.org/college-dropout.html
This has absolutely no relevance to the issue of who pay and who benefits from college education. The kids in a functional high school can succeed and earn scholarships to attend top universities simply means that those who have much (academic talent and parents who can afford private school) can be given even more (free access to top notch eduction). In the end they will get high paying jobs and pay back some of all that in the form of higher tax rates. On the other hand 95% of the kids who for family reasons are stuck in the dysfunctional public high school will never get the opportunity to finish a college eduction.
DeDude, “The kids in a functional high school can succeed and earn scholarships to attend top universities simply means that those who have much (academic talent and parents who can afford private school) can be given even more (free access to top notch eduction).”
No, because the kids who attend a “functional” high school are living in suburbs where parents give a shit… and they are already attending those colleges. When you have a dysfunctional culture, you won’t have a functional high school. Besides, the average net value… net value… of a bachelors degree is nearly $400k. So, even if the parents and the kids both have to contribute, it’s worth it.
And yes, “This has
absolutely norelevance to the issue of who pay and who benefits from college education.” Anyone who applies themselves in high school can figure out a way to go to college without another government siphon program. My daughter-in-law came from a rural area and lived in a tiny house. She worked her butt off to be valedictorian of her class and parlayed that into a bachelors degree from the University of Michigan.Meritocracy still has its place in a just world, but not in a world where merit is not considered meritorious. The City of Detroit announced it would give free tuition for 2 years of college to its high school students. How noble. Detroit went bankrupt, got a big bailout, now the Detroit Public Schools are going bankrupt and seeking $700 million from the State of Michigan… and it is going to pay for the first 2 years of college for Detroit high school students? No, Detroit isn’t going to pay for anything. And it hasn’t fixed anything with all of the money it has gotten. Giveaways don’t work. Working for your own goals works.
@Bruce,
“Anyone who applies themselves in high school can figure out a way to go to college without another government siphon program. My daughter-in-law….”
Yes the current system does not prevent every single individual to break out of poverty and overcome a poor education system. However, if you look at the real world; it is the exception not the rule that a kid from a dysfunctional school system makes it to graduation from college. The fact that you want to put the blame on those kids claming that it is their own fault, just demonstrates that you need to get out of your cozy little suburb and expose yourself to the people you so cluelessly dismiss as lazy.
DeDude, will you accept actual research from the liberal thinking tank, The Brookings Institution?
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2015/06/24-kalamazoo-promise-college-ready
You can send ill-prepared students to college for free, but the outcome is generally a waste of money. Free is not the answer. A better attitude toward education, hard work, and… most importantly… an aptitude for academics. This doesn’t start after high school.
_________________________
Okay, that’s enough digression from the original topic of research universities being underfunded… and I’ve made my opinions known about that above.