el_richo

I've just had weetabix for breakfast. Is it available in Yellowknife?

London Mike

Why doesn't it "stack up" whatever that means. What is a well subsidized leading university? The sentence starting with Responsible government doesn't make sense.

Why doesn't that make sense? What I'm saying is that a responsible government should invest in HE. That's a pretty straightforward statement to make sense of. Whether you agree with it is another matter.

I'm not sure what an academic market is and I can't understand why you mention management sciences, WTF is that? Last time I looked Germany Sweden and Finland were just fine.

As you asked ... an academic market can mean many things, but in this context I was stating that Canada is the 3rd largest exporter of social science research published in leading journals. Sciencewatch/ISI is a pretty good metric here - http://sciencewatch.com/dr/cou/2010/10aprSOC/. I don't' know how often you "look at Germany, Sweden and Finland" but you'll see that Sweden and Finland don't really compare at all. Germany does fare better, but in a country of 90m people you'd expect it to...

Management sciences: Organizational Behaviour, HRM, Strategic Management, Suppy Chain Management etc etc

Now, aside from the obvious, why could that be?

jimf

You seem to be saying that the USA, UK and to a reduced extent are broke. On the other hand Sweden, Finland and Germany are doing relatively okay but because their universities don't produce many "management science" papers their social/economic/HE model is somehow inferior. Where were the the papers in the USA and UK on the management of risk in the banking and housing sectors?

Novocastrian

The original academic paper which eventually precipitated the 2007/8 meltdown was published by a Canadian borne Chinese econometrics "expert" called David Li, working at U. Waterloo.

Way to go Management Sciences in Canada.

Novocastrian

This is part of your original post. Even with your "clarification" the sentence doesn't "stack up".

The discussion is about undergraduate tuition funding models. If you think that "well subsidized leading universities" spend a single cent of tuition fees on an fMRI or whatever, you know nothing.

We have one, and millions and millions of dollars worth of other such stuff. Undergraduates aren't normally allowed anywhere near (although I do encourage mine to visit under close supervision).

London Mike

Actually there were plenty of them ... but the fact that the government chose not to listen to those social scientists and their empirical data is nothing new. For those who were in the UK a year ago you may recall the outrage over the drug tsar Prof David Nutt being sacked by the govt and pilloried by the right wing press for daring to suggest that ecstasy was less harmful than alcohol.

Anyway, the point I was making was about supporting funding in HE now more than ever and that if Canada, US and the UK have these great universities - but are also broke - then students attending them should make a nominal contribution. It's not possible to fund ALL tuition fees, all new building schemes, research grants, salaries to attract world-leading scholars plus all other university costs in the US, UK and Canada so something's got to give. Perhaps Swedish and German universities have a more socialist approach to inclusion within Higher Education but their universities (evidently) are not in the same league.

London Mike

Why don't you actually read what I printed? I said that these places are expensive places to run and and used as an e.g. of an fMRI machine to indicate the level of expense. Tuition fees DO contrubute towards the cost of universities. They certainly did in the two universities I was at before I came to Canada ...

Don't be ridiculous ...

Novocastrian

To repeat. Tuition costs at Canadian Universities (whether provincially provided or charged directly to students) have nothing, repeat nothing, to do with new building schemes (unless directly related to the undergraduate experience), research grants, salaries to attract world-leading scholars or ANY other university costs (except bloated administrations).

Swedish universities (e.g Stockholm, Uppsala, Gothenburg) and Germany (e.g. Heidelberg, Munich, Frankfurt, Berlin, and too many other to list) are mostly certainly in the same league, if not the one above.

Novocastrian

Yes, but not to research infrastructure or the rest of your list of red herrings.

London Mike

"To repeat" take a(nother) good look at:
http://sciencewatch.com/dr/cou/2010/10aprSOC/.

I'm sorry but they're NOT in the same league.

You work at a Canadian university. Good for you. I don't really care to understand in what field. In the field in which I work, the top 5 universities in Canada (Waterloo, Queen's, McMasters, Western Ontario, UBC) ARE more superior to the universities you mention from Germany and Sweden in research terms. By quite some distance, actually. That is not to denegrate these instutions at all. I have many fine colleagues in universities across Europe. But the ScienceWatch statistics don't lie. And as you know, good research informs good teaching.

Yes, I am aware that tuition does not fund research. And more directly it may not fund new building projects in Canada too. But it DOES contribute towards alleviating the costs of running a university whatever 'other pots' it may fall in to. "To repeat" I said that universities are expensive places to subsidize (including my list of red herrings which are not red herrings clearly; a strange remark from an academic but anyway ...) and that tuition can and should, in my iew, make a necessary contribution to running universities - especially very good ones that are in nations that are struggling financially.

In the US, tuition is clearly even more crucial. What do you think UMichigan does with its $35k-$50k per student per year (yes those fees are right): give it to Profs to prop up their lunch allowance?

Come on.

jimf

If the papers produced by the universities were not picked up and used in the real world then its not just a case of the governments not "choosing" to listen but also a case of the institutions apparently not having credibility or sufficient persuasive ability to successfully project whatever good ideas they may generate which sounds like failure on their part also.

It may be that USA/UK/Canadian universities opererate in an English speaking insular world in which they congratulate themselves on being the elite but the reality is the countries which you consider second rate appear to operate more successfully and the way they operate their HE system will be a significant part of that.

London Mike

I hear what you're saying but I don't think credibility is the issue here. You can't get more credible than a top ranked peer reveiwed journal. I just think the UK and US government should hold their heads in shame - on the econominc crisis, as with other things, they did not listen to what academics were telling them.

The UK's in a mess. See this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11550619

Novocastrian

I don't want to get into a pissing match with you about which universities are ranked wherever for whatever discipline in research terms. This discussion, as I said, is about undergrad funding models, which is a totally different thing.

Besides, I assume from your earlier post that you do something related to "Management Sciences", so I find it strange that the top ranked business school in Canada, isn't among the 5 you list.

And of course the very idea that 5 Canadian Universities would top the global list in any subject raises an eyebrow (although Lumberjacking and Seal-bashing Studies might be an exception).

Jingsamichty

Guys, I think the OP tore his own eyes out last week. You can stop now.

Sally Redux

Lunch allowance?