Recently, the federal government released a proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” based on a proposal from investor Marc Rowan.
Wait a minute-they are cutting science funding, including the science funding that funds PhD study in "hard sciences", but they want tuition to be free for undergrads doing sciences so that....we can have more....scientists?
Any institution that accepts such an arrangement is just setting itself up to be exploited, so, practically speaking, there is no reason for an institution to accept such a compact.
While I agree with the observations about the absence of federal authority to regulate most of these things, doesn't the fact that this is couched as a "compact" mostly defeat that criticism? That is, of course the government can't impose these requirements by diktat, but that doesn't mean a university can't be foolish enough to voluntarily sign up to it.
Maybe you're making an argument that conditioning the provision of federal research funds and other public monies on acceptance of regulatory oversight that the agencies are not empowered to have is a kind of "unconstitutional conditions" foul? I'm not sure how that holds up, but it might be worth spinning out a bit.
Fair point. I didn't want to get into constitutional law here, but someone elsewhere said this is unconstitutional conditions on steroids. I.e., the usual case is the federal government giving funding for, say, highways, and then attaching a condition that it wouldn't otherwise have the authority to regulate directly. Here, they are suggesting that these conditions all apply not just to funding, but to tax exemption, contracts, the ability of students to get loans, and the ability of international students to get visas.
Wait a minute-they are cutting science funding, including the science funding that funds PhD study in "hard sciences", but they want tuition to be free for undergrads doing sciences so that....we can have more....scientists?
Any institution that accepts such an arrangement is just setting itself up to be exploited, so, practically speaking, there is no reason for an institution to accept such a compact.
Excellent, as always.
While I agree with the observations about the absence of federal authority to regulate most of these things, doesn't the fact that this is couched as a "compact" mostly defeat that criticism? That is, of course the government can't impose these requirements by diktat, but that doesn't mean a university can't be foolish enough to voluntarily sign up to it.
Maybe you're making an argument that conditioning the provision of federal research funds and other public monies on acceptance of regulatory oversight that the agencies are not empowered to have is a kind of "unconstitutional conditions" foul? I'm not sure how that holds up, but it might be worth spinning out a bit.
Fair point. I didn't want to get into constitutional law here, but someone elsewhere said this is unconstitutional conditions on steroids. I.e., the usual case is the federal government giving funding for, say, highways, and then attaching a condition that it wouldn't otherwise have the authority to regulate directly. Here, they are suggesting that these conditions all apply not just to funding, but to tax exemption, contracts, the ability of students to get loans, and the ability of international students to get visas.