Why the United States has the best research universities

Tons of research funding happens in the US because corporations lobby Congress to give money for research, which props up the status of those schools, and more research comes out.

US draws more foreign students than I suspect any other country with all this research money, which in turn draws more status and money.

"The following comparison will illustrate my meaning. During the campaigns of the Revolution the French introduced a new system of tactics into the art of war, which perplexed the oldest generals, and very nearly destroyed the most ancient monarchies in Europe. They undertook (what had never before been attempted) to make shift without a number of things which had always been held to be indispensable in warfare; they required novel exertions on the part of their troops which no civilized nations had ever thought of; they achieved great actions in an incredibly short space of time; and they risked human life without hesitation to obtain the object in view. The French had less money and fewer men than their enemies; their resources were infinitely inferior; nevertheless they were constantly victorious, until their adversaries chose to imitate their example.

"The Americans have introduced a similar system into their commercial speculations; and they do for cheapness what the French did for conquest. The European sailor navigates with prudence; he only sets sail when the weather is favorable; if an unforseen accident befalls him, he puts into port; at night he furls a portion of his canvas; and when the whitening billows intimate the vicinity of land, he checks his way, and takes an observation of the sun. But the American neglects these precautions and braves these dangers. He weighs anchor in the midst of tempestuous gales; by night and by day he spreads his sheets to the wind; he repairs as he goes along such damage as his vessel may have sustained from the storm; and when he at last approaches the term of his voyage, he darts onward to the shore as if he already descried a port. The Americans are often shipwrecked, but no trader crosses the seas so rapidly. And as they perform the same distance in a shorter time, they can perform it at a cheaper rate.

"The European touches several times at different ports in the course of a long voyage; he loses a good deal of precious time in making the harbor, or in waiting for a favorable wind to leave it; and he pays daily dues to be allowed to remain there. The American starts from Boston to go to purchase tea in China; he arrives at Canton, stays there a few days, and then returns. In less than two years he has sailed as far as the entire circumference of the globe, and he has seen land but once. It is true that during a voyage of eight or ten months he has drunk brackish water and lived upon salt meat; that he has been in a continual contest with the sea, with disease, and with a tedious existence; but upon his return he can sell a pound of his tea for a half-penny less than the English merchant, and his purpose is accomplished."

--Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America"

http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Jurisprudence/E...

For example, taking a high risk of attempting to create a unicorn startup for the low reward of having more money isn't really worth it here. That's because the barrier at which point 'more money' makes your life 'better' is much lower. Same goes for prestige, it doesn't really get you all that much here.

Together, that means that taking larger risks doesn't really have a lot of benefits in general, unless you personally enjoy it.

This is different form the need to have a 'big' change requiring a 'big' risk in order to make your life measurably better (monetarily, prestige, perceived power, or otherwise).

There are endeavours that pose significant risk, but have a significant reward to match; think ITER and CERN; it is a considerable effort and monetary investment without knowing what the true outcome will be. All you know ahead of time is that something will come out of it. (while those two aren't exactly comparable; a single-purpose project vs. an organisation with multiple projects; it's about the concept of risk, investment and possible outcomes or returns)

Say a particle accelerator take a lot of time, labour and money and can be used to make discoveries, but you don't know what discoveries. That means you have a huge investment but no guarantee that you will be able to produce something that has the value of the investment (or more). But there is the chance of significant scientific discovery, which makes it a project that countries are willing to take the risk for.

Expanding on my own word salad: perhaps personally I'd say that in my environment collecting money or 'stuff' in itself isn't seen as valuable, but being able to maintain a good life and have a fulfilling life is. At the same time, in a larger context, things like discovery, exploration and research are valued as well, but boasting or broadcasting about it isn't seen as very valuable. I suppose that also makes for an environment where space exploration is seen as a good thing but ironically without a big PR machine it can't be funded. It's like having a goal without the means.