Throwing money at existing schools is unlikely to create such an environment - the bureaucratic inertia is too large.
I disagree. It seems it's always easier for a banker turned political appointee to gather some social credibility by proposing starting something from scratch rather than improving what's already there.
I mean which is going to give you more social points at the next fund raiser for the MMA: A) "I want to help these schools expand their campus's no matter what the political opposition" or B) "I have a vision for making NYC the country's next great tech capital".
The idea that a government planned activity is going to cultivate an institution the likes of which happens one or twice a century is pretty preposterous.
I also think you may be dismissing the schools I mentioned too easily. They are all "top rated". I would consider several to be in the top ten engineering schools in the country.
I didn't mean to suggest that I think this project has a significant chance of success. I just assign a much lower success probability to throwing money at one of the existing schools which have already failed.
I'm sorry but how exactly have those schools failed?
the local politicians are already quite willing to take property from other people (by force) in order to help a university expand:
Expansion plans that take a decade to get government approval doesn't imply "quite willing to take property". Everybody involved plays the situation to their own advantage.
I'm sorry but how exactly have those schools failed?
They have failed to become top engineering schools and create a Stanford/MIT-like community.
Expansion plans that take a decade to get government approval doesn't imply "quite willing to take property".
It didn't take 10 years to get government approval, it took 10 years for the government to take property from people against their will. What exactly are you advocating for? Giving our corporate/university overlords the power to steal your land 30 days or less?
Comments
Throwing money at existing schools is unlikely to create such an environment - the bureaucratic inertia is too large.
I disagree. It seems it's always easier for a banker turned political appointee to gather some social credibility by proposing starting something from scratch rather than improving what's already there.
I mean which is going to give you more social points at the next fund raiser for the MMA: A) "I want to help these schools expand their campus's no matter what the political opposition" or B) "I have a vision for making NYC the country's next great tech capital".
The idea that a government planned activity is going to cultivate an institution the likes of which happens one or twice a century is pretty preposterous.
I also think you may be dismissing the schools I mentioned too easily. They are all "top rated". I would consider several to be in the top ten engineering schools in the country.
I didn't mean to suggest that I think this project has a significant chance of success. I just assign a much lower success probability to throwing money at one of the existing schools which have already failed.
By the way, the local politicians are already quite willing to take property from other people (by force) in order to help a university expand: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2010/12/13/us-supreme-court...
existing schools which have already failed.
I'm sorry but how exactly have those schools failed?
the local politicians are already quite willing to take property from other people (by force) in order to help a university expand:
Expansion plans that take a decade to get government approval doesn't imply "quite willing to take property". Everybody involved plays the situation to their own advantage.
I'm sorry but how exactly have those schools failed?
They have failed to become top engineering schools and create a Stanford/MIT-like community.
Expansion plans that take a decade to get government approval doesn't imply "quite willing to take property".
It didn't take 10 years to get government approval, it took 10 years for the government to take property from people against their will. What exactly are you advocating for? Giving our corporate/university overlords the power to steal your land 30 days or less?