It pains me to say this, as an economist and a graduate of Columbia University, but it might be time to break up not only Columbia, but also the US’ entire system of elite higher education.
The US’ large private research universities, such as Columbia and Harvard, have long been crucial to its economic power. The symbiotic relationship between universities and the government, which subsidizes tuition and funds research, has created growth and innovation that is the envy of the world.
Now, instead of being a source of national pride, many elite universities have become a source of national division, with some Americans viewing them as decadent, hypocritical or even hostile to their values. It was thus inevitable that they would become a target of US President Donald Trump’s administration.
First, it capped US National Institute of Health reimbursements for costs indirectly related to research (utilities, administration, facilities and so on), and it is now cutting grants entirely at elite research universities such as Harvard. The administration is also threatening to revoke the tax-exempt status of its endowment and trying to prevent Harvard from enrolling foreign students, a critical source of funding and talent.
Universities say these cuts are ending important research projects into diseases such as cancer and ALS. European universities, sensing an opportunity, are trying to poach talented professors and students from the US, many of whom are European and came to the US because it is more lucrative.
Federal money helps to pay those higher salaries and defray research costs. This is why US universities have become the world’s research centers, attracting the most talented students and scientists, many of whom stay and make enormous contributions to the US economy — such as Elon Musk.
This whole system is mostly the brainchild of Vannevar Bush (yes, of that Bush family), who headed the US Office of Scientific Research and Development during World War II and advocated for government support of research in the university system. His view was that if scientific research happened at universities, it would be protected from political influence.
There turned out to be other benefits too: More money and prestige made US universities the best in the world. Universities doing research could attract and retain the best talent, who would not be satisfied just teaching undergraduates. They could also train graduate students.
However, about eight decades after Bush first advertised his ideas, many taxpayers have come to see elite universities as overtly political institutions. It is not just the lack of intellectual diversity among the faculty. It is the research tinged with politics, the canceled speakers, the discrimination in hiring and admissions, the loyalty oaths, and the institutional statements on issues that had nothing to do with the university. The response of many universities to the events and aftermath of Oct. 7, 2023, served to highlight how out of touch they were.
True, most science researchers have little to no engagement with politics. So why should they and their research be punished? The answer is that they should not — and that is why the research university model might not work anymore.
Universities played a critical role in the US economy in the 20th century, but in the 21st they have strayed from their mission. If the implicit bargain of Bush was taxpayer money in exchange for staying out of politics, then too many universities have not lived up to it. It is not that the scientific research itself is tainted by politics, it is that the institutions themselves are.
The question is not whether the US system of higher education needs to change, but how. The current arrangement, apolitical graduate scientific research programs paired with highly political arts and humanities departments, has become untenable. Taxpayers might be happy to subsidize cancer research or an education for the less fortunate, but not with the excesses of what some universities have become. The subsidies might have also blunted market signals, resulting in too many students getting useless degrees.
At the same time, government-supported research is critical to the US’ long-term economic success. One option is breaking up universities. For example, for a university such as Columbia, the engineering, medical and business schools, along with some of the hard sciences, could form one entity. The college, the humanities, and the social-science schools and departments could form another and continue with their activism.
Alternatively, if the US wants to keep the private elite research universities in their current form, they would need to make sincere and major changes. Universities have always had professors who say and even teach offensive things. The more recent failure involved extreme views becoming university policy. That is an institutional failure that is not easily remedied.
Institutions evolve over time, of their own initiative or at the behest of society. One of the strongest criticisms of the Trump administration’s policies is that they are rash; universities are right that Trump has gone too far, and suppressed their independence and free speech.
However, Trump’s attacks on the US system of higher education did not come from nowhere. Given the behavior of the US’ great universities over the past decade, it is hard to have much sympathy — or to believe they are capable of a transformation.
Their entire economic model, weakened from within, is now under pressure from external forces. The threat of a breakup might be the only thing that can force them to change.
Allison Schrager is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering economics. She is the author of An Economist Walks Into a Brothel: And Other Unexpected Places to Understand Risk. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Saturday is the day of the first batch of recall votes primarily targeting lawmakers of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The scale of the recall drive far outstrips the expectations from when the idea was mooted in January by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘). The mass recall effort is reminiscent of the Sunflower movement protests against the then-KMT government’s non-transparent attempts to push through a controversial cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014. That movement, initiated by students, civic groups and non-governmental organizations, included student-led protesters occupying the main legislative chamber for three weeks. The two movements are linked
RSS