A Usenet persona calling itself frtzw906 wrote:
I didn't say the university made a profit, I said, quite specifically,
"there are profits to be made."
Universities are profit generators. That the university itself doesn't show
a profit is irrelevant, they are a huge part of the economy of most
communities, not just from wages and compensation for employees, but to the
community that serves the students and faculty. And then there are the
scientific discoveries that universities foster and patent. They, and the
public, share in the profits accruing from such things.
People support universities not simply because they provide advanced
knowledge, but because they are massive profit-generating engines for the
communities and the nation as a whole.
================
Man Scott, you're sounding more and more left-wing by the hour. Have you
finally started taking your meds? ;-)
Nope, I'm still as crazy as a fox. There is, and has always been a method to
my madness.
Free market economic reality is hardly left-wing.
You sound just a tad weaselly what with: 'I said, quite specifically,
"there are profits to be made.'"
Yes, I'm really good at that. It's one of my trademarks and techniques. It
helps weed out the illiterati and identify those truly interested in a
probative debate. It encourages people to pay close attention to what is
*actually* said, rather than what they may have *perceived*. The difference
is often substantial. When people start actually paying attention, the level
of the debate rises markedly, as we have seen. Still, there are the
bottom-dwellers who haven't the wit to participate at a higher level of
discourse who continue to try to drag the debate back down in the gutter.
Try to eschew these Netwits. I do like to bait them and watch them melt
down and make fools of themselves. But that's just for fun.
But, you are quite right in your assessment of the impact of
universities on their communities.
That's all I'm saying.
However, that still leaves us with
your initial assertion that med school respond to market demand for
doctors.
Sure they do. At least down here. Every business responds to market demands,
even universities.
The answer is still "Nope." They respond to "political" or government
demand for more admissions into med school.
They may do so *also,* but that's not the only motivator, by any stretch of
the imagination. And that model is not the one we use down here, though I
recognize that it may well be the case in Canada.
Simply because, from a
purely market perspective, there's "nothing" in it for the university to
invest in all that is involved in running a med school.
Don't be silly! There's billions of dollars in it for a vast array of people
and businesses.
Much cheaper to
open another 20 section in the MBA program.
MBAs don't buy MRI machines or surgical suites.
But "society" (read
government) recognizes that we sure as hell don't need more MBA's (or
lawyers), but we (USA and Canada) do need more nurses and doctors. So,
as per my previous post, the government mandates (recall that direct
line between the governor's mansion and the University president's
office -- via the Regents) that admissions to the med schools be increased.
Well, of course, in a socialist system that may be true, but down here,
neither the state nor federal government sets quotas for med school
admissions. They can't. They don't have that power. The Governor has never
so much as explicated such a demand.
In Canada, however, I can easily see how the central government would do
exactly that, of necessity, because potential med school students don't want
to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a medical school education that
they will never recover from a de facto government-controlled wage system.
So, the government has to mandate admissions, which the schools have to
accomplish by cutting the costs to the med students and by lowering
admission standards to draw from a larger potential pool, which inevitably
results in "bracket creep" and an inferior education through government
mandated "inclusiveness."
The Canadian way is the way of mediocrity and ambivalence, and you end up
with inferior doctors and nurses as a result.
This is all part of the non-private, not-for-profit part of the economy
(polity) that you like to deny and disparage.
Darned right I do! And for the very good reason that such systems don't
produce the finest doctors in the world, because there's no future economic
incentive for potential doctors to go through the grind. They'd just as soon
be MBAs and make more money in the stock market, which even Canada doesn't
try to control.
In response to this rejection by highly qualified MD candidates of an
inferior educational system that will provide an inferior profit potential
in the long run, the schools have to compromise their admission standard,
and their educational programs, to get *somebody,* anybody, through the
system to provide some sort of medical care to the polity.
But, it seems, from this post, you do GET IT! WELL DONE!
Thanks! When will you get it, I wonder?
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser
|