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.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
RSS