Comments on: Why do for-profit higher education providers have a small market share?

By: NPOV

NPOV — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:16:10 +0000

I think it’s a fair bet we wouldn’t have the internet as we know it now without a lot of the funding that supports non-profit organisations. It’s not just the initial development of it either, but the software that much of it still runs on. I’d hazard a guess that at least 50% of the software that makes up the backbone of the internet (including blog software) has been developed as a not-for-profit exercise. And something in the order of 25% of it owes its existence directly to taxpayer funding.
Hardware is quite a different issue of course.

By: JC

JC — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:06:24 +0000

“without “government supported funding of research over the last 80-100 years” it’s pretty fair to guess that we wouldn’t be having this conversation for a start.”

So the guy who conceived the internet would never have been born or worked in the tech field unless there was government funding?

By: NPOV

NPOV — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:30:22 +0000

Jc, without “government supported funding of research over the last 80-100 years” it’s pretty fair to guess that we wouldn’t be having this conversation for a start.
Personally I don’t care too much where the money comes from - if an academic non-profit organisation like MIT can secure a guaranteed flow of private money, then there’s little need for government money, but in Austalia there just isn’t that culture of philanthropy.
However defence-based research (DARPA etc.) is pretty much always going to rely on taxpayer funds. And it’s hard to imagine NASA surviving on philanthropy.

By: conrad

conrad — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:05:03 +0000

I don’t worry about it JC. Its just people complain about it, and I was just pointing out that part of making money from universities is due to external factors like a good private sector and companies that can actually usefully employ super talented people.

By: JC

JC — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:32:40 +0000

Australia is notorious for this — people think of good ideas but are not able to capitalize on them).

Big deal, so the ideas get made overseas. So what? There isn’t a computer made in the US thes days either.

In addition, you might like to consider why the high-tech areas of the US have been pretty much the richest areas on Earth for the last 50 years or so.

You mean those centres around Harvard, MIT Stanford, Berkley, Caltec? Ummm

the richest areas on earth are financial centres.

But you may also want to ponder the average compensation at BHP is $75,000. Not bad for mostly untrained people.

I don’t think we should worry too much about our ideas going overseas, conrad. As trhe 8th richest nation on earth by GDP per cap were no slouches.

By: JC

JC — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:25:22 +0000

Conrad:

I couldn’t imagine what the earth would be like if we didn’t have government supported funding of research over the last 80-100 years. I’m sure we would bhe still riding horse carriages.

By: conrad

conrad — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:03:31 +0000

JC, I don’t think most stuff comes out of universities — however, I think a lot of the basic level stuff does and more particularly most of the great technology leaps that change everything as we know it (like DNA). I’m pretty glad, for example, we know about DNA and exotic materials which led to computers. I’m also glad we have advanced mathematics so we can analyse all that biotech data. THats why I think it is important — I think private firms and universities are good at different things.
In addition, you might like to consider why the high-tech areas of the US have been pretty much the richest areas on Earth for the last 50 years or so. I believe many people argue that it is because they get all the new technology spin-offs from the universities and the fact that the smartest people on Earth all want to move there (of course it only works because they also have the private firm integration with venture funds and so on — Australia is notorious for this — people think of good ideas but are not able to capitalize on them).

By: Sacha

Sacha — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:29:51 +0000

Don’t know where it fits in here: Newton’s Principia and Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism?

(the really driven people will do the work regardless of whether it’s for money or fun provided they have the time)

By: JC

JC — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:26:51 +0000

How about productivity gains which bascially means doing less with more. US productivity has at times been as high as 5% of GDP. That alone is worth US$700 billion pa. i would argue that productivity ought to be counted.

By: JC

JC — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:23:49 +0000

Conrad:

advances in chips
fuel injection
Catalytic converters
run flat tires
Keyless cars
Ipod

financial engineering
New methods of mining.
Deep water drilling.

these are just a tiny, tiny sample of stuff that comes out of private industry.

You would be foolish to think most stuff comes from universities.

In any event you haven’t given one reason why you think government funding is better able to provide research money.