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.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS