A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

Post by teachrdan » Thu, May 14, 2026, 10:47 PM UTC

daedrdev wrote: post #638

andix wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no shortage of money This is a general theme in the last decade. There is a lot of money, but it is more and more ending up in the pockets of the extremely wealthy. I'm really no communist, but we've reached a point where the system starts to crumble because of it. It also can't be in the interest of the billionaires. They also want to live in a safe country and use working public infrastructure (roads, ai…

Until last year, the share of wealth by the 1% had been basically flat at 31% for a decade https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBST01134 Your expectations aren't matching reality

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 14, 2026, 11:00 PM UTC

dhosek wrote: post #376

JoeNuts wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universities get ~40-50% of their funding from the government. Private equity doesn't quite fit.

Is that across all universities? Because I would guess that, for example, University of Illinois gets a much larger portion of its funding from government sources than University of Chicago (which would be one of those well-endowed universities which, incidentally, just cut tuition to zero for undergrads from families making less than $250K).

Post by andix » Thu, May 14, 2026, 11:12 PM UTC

shimman wrote: post #607

andix wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. Billionaires rely on public safety. To fly their private jets around the world they need ATC and airports. They need police, so angry people don't buy rockets and shoot their planes down. They also want to chill at their pool, without hundreds of people outside rioting. They want to drive their sports cars somewhere. They don't want to live their life in a zombie apocalypse shelter. And how good wil…

No, what you are describing are billionaires using public money to subsidize their lifestyles.

Post by SauntSolaire » Thu, May 14, 2026, 11:25 PM UTC

JimBlackwood wrote: post #254

andrepd wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about research, science research in particular. "Preparing for the workforce" is not the point here (and arguably should not really be the point of education in general, but much can be said about that...). You speak of "market" and "cost-value" and economic darwinism. You seem to be confused: many things do not work based on next-quarter revenue optimisation, fundamental science research being one of them.

> This is about research, science research in particular. "Preparing for the workforce" is not the point here (and arguably should not really be the point of education in general, but much can be said about that...). This is a bit short sighted. Not all university studies are for fundamental science (law, for instance). Some university studies need to work together with industry (again, law. or some physics studies).…

Post by BeetleB » Thu, May 14, 2026, 11:27 PM UTC

fastaguy88 wrote: post #629

BeetleB wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that what the article is saying? Less research funding == Fewer admissions. > The number of graduate student admissions is directly tied to the amount of external funding. Minor quibble: It's not merely external funding. In many sciences (math, physics, chemistry), it's common for the department to promise funding through non-research means for a number of years. In my top school, I think physics students were…

While it is true that departments often fund their graduate students for the first year (or possibly 2) out of their own budgets, their budgets are largely determined by the generosity of their Deans (who got the money from indirect costs from grants) or their own indirect costs. And they will not be admitting students if they do not see a clear path for them to be externally funded after their first year or two.