Research Universities in America : Part 1

One of the (few) areas that distinguishes this country from the rest of the world is higher education - more specifically,  research universities. About a 100 institutions of higher learning (you can see a list here) can be classified as research universities (or universities with a very high level of research activity) and a great number enjoy a preeminent position globally. These entities thrive in a very unique ecosystem with large student bodies/campuses (typically above 25,000 students and spread over hundreds/thousands of acres), massive budgets (typically more than a billion dollars) and engaged in the business of "knowledge creation" (rather than "knowledge transmission" which is the goal of teaching-centric institutions).  Quite interestingly, even within the United States, the general public is not very aware of the level of excellence these universities have accomplished as impressions get built mostly on reputations of undergraduate programs.  In a series of posts, I will try to cover various aspects of these amazing institutions. I've been reading a few books, especially Cole, Geiger and Slosson.

A historical journey has to always begin with the creation of the first American college.. Harvard, which was instituted in 1636. Growth of American colleges was, however, slow initially (the next college was started 60 years later), but picked up in the 19th century. By the time of the civil war, about 100 or so "major" colleges were in existence. Before 1850, these colleges were in the business of educating future church ministers and elites and the typical college appears to have about 5 teachers and 100 students. Here is a rough timeline of the various stages of evolution between 1850-1920. We will look at this in more detail:

1850s: Natural sciences gain foothold
1860s: Utilitarian objectives are institutionalized
1870s: Post-Graduate training and research started
1890s: Abrupt acceleration (enrollment, especially in engineering and sciences), fundraising
1920:  Universities established patterns of structure and financing recognizable today.

By the time of the civil war, languages, mathematics, philosophy and history were being taught at a very basic level. In other words, the US didn't have a single true university, but post-bachelor's education in the style of German advanced universities was being looked at with great envy. The Germans were the first to transform universities from teaching to research, starting in the 1820s. Though research had existed in European universities before this time, it was not organized in any form (Isaac Newton was paid to teach and performed research as an amateur). The distinguishing aspect of German research universities was a formal structure which allowed for "search for truth irrespective of utilitarian applications," i.e., a focus on basic research. Until late in the 19th century, many Americans tended to pursue post-bachelors education in Germany and most brought back the experience and vision to America. 

1850s: Initial efforts

Though Harvard and Yale began tinkering with the Lawrence scientific school and Sheffield scientific school (both in 1847), respectively, these institutes were focused on providing advanced practical training. Henry Tappan, the first president of the University of Michigan, came up with a prototype of the American research university in 1851 and wanted to replicate the German model in Ann Arbor. He emphasized research and laboratory activity in the course of study. While Tappan was able to institute part of his plan, he did have serious clashes with the rest of the administration.

1862:  Morrill land grant act

The first "quasi-research" universities were enabled to a great degree by the Morrill land grant act in 1862,  whereby "lands belonging to the US government were transferred to the states on condition that proceeds from their sale of land was to be used to establish colleges (and later universities) to teach practical science, primarily in agriculture and the mechanical sciences".  This act led to some of the great universities of today to be founded (Illinois,  California, etc), and strengthened many existing universities.

1876: Johns Hopkins University

While Tappan had sown the seeds of the research univeristy and the Morrill act enriched them, the founding of the Johns Hopkins University in 1876 is much cliched as "perhaps the single most decisive event in the history of learning in the Western Hemisphere."  JHU not only replicated the German model, it also added a distinctive American touch (the German system was seen to be rigid and authoritarian). Though JHU originally provided advanced graduate instruction, it produced much more PhDs than elsewhere in a few years; established a number of research journals and JHU graduates took their ideas to the rest of the country. Yale awarded the first American PhD in 1861, but was outnumbered very soon by JHU. JHU had a small number of highly distinguished faculty who were free to pursue advanced ideas. It is interesting that even now, JHU and Michigan are #1 and #2 in terms of annual research expenditure.

1890s:  Beginnings of fundraising 

The major American universities of today sit on mountainous cash piles (effectively, tax-free hedge funds) running into the several billions of dollars each, dwarfing competition from the rest of the world. The establishment of Yale alumni fund (1890) was a singular event that was successfully imitated by the rest. Yale was able to get $11,000 from 385 grads and this model and other private universities.  By 1905, Harvard was able to raise $100k from the 1880 class. 

1890s: Growth

A few universities grew very rapidly, especially in the engineering and science disciplines. Michigan, for instance, had enough students to have a separate college of Engineering with 300 students in 1895 (this number quadrupled in 10 years). While most universities grew, only four (Harvard, Michigan, Penn and Yale) had more than 2000 students.

1900: AAU

The research landscape became more organized by the founding of the Association of American Universities (AAU) "by a group of fourteen Ph.D.-granting universities to strengthen and standardize American doctoral programs." 12 of these 14 universities (Columbia, Harvard, Penn, Princeton, Yale, Michigan, Berkeley, Wisconsin, JHU, Stanford, Cornell, Chicago) along with MIT continue to be at the top of the pecking order to this day. Membership in the AAU is highly coveted and as of 2013, there are 60 member universities.

1900s: Fundraising takes off
Universities became the major beneficiaries of the bonanza of the Gilded age as they attracted a clear majority of charitable offerings until 1910. This era also coincided with the uptick in fund-raising tactics (which continue to this age) organized by the universities themselves. Multi-million dollar gifts became commonplace at the richer universities.

1900-1920: Getting there
In 1900, the total US expenditure on research was just $11M. This number grew to $345M by 1940, setting the environment for academic research. By 1920,  the transformation from teaching to research-orientation was complete. All faculty members were expected to contribute to the growth of knowledge and the American research university as we know it was in place. In fact, if you look at this fascinating book written in 1910 (about the 14 original research universities), you will be amazed.

You are much safer now than ever before

It annoys me to no end when the 24/7 media circus and the human tendency to fixate on highlights completely skews perspective. Let's start with your typical "the way the world is going... " after every horrid incident that you read in the news. 

Sure, until the last crime stops in the world, we need to worry about such things (and it is not my intent to trivialize the bad side of society), but let's look at numbers regarding US crime statistics. This chart (from Pew) gives you an idea of the last 20 years, but let's put it in words: Rapes are down to 1/6th of the level of the 90s, Non-fatal firearm crime is down to 1/5th, and homicide rates (down by more than 50% across the board and MUCH more in major cities.. yes.. you got me.. Detroit is an exception) have been dropping at such a fast rate that now we're looking at numbers not seen in more than 100 years.. and possibly ever! Sorry gun control nuts, I am indeed on your side, but please don't spell out wrong facts while stating your case (which is just). Also, America bashers, violent crime in the US is now actually less than that in the UK and "Europe" and it has been so for 15 years... and yes.. this is a selective stat - homicide rates in the US are much higher..

Below is what the US public thinks about crime rates in the past 20 years.

Of course... and before you blame stupid Americans about it, the British are pretty much the same (they're wrong about everything too).

Democracy is obviously the answer to modern governance, but if the public are so wrong about basic things (that independent article is great fun.. read the parts regarding job seeker's allowance vs foreign aid and welfare cheating), what is the point? 

And it is not just the US and UK that have seen a decline in violence.. have a look. 

Now, in the bigger scheme of things, as Steven Pinker explains in his WONDERFUL book "The Better Angels of our Nature", a preview of which can be found here , we're living in the "most peaceable era in the existence of our species". At both small and large time scales, things are continually improving, and at a  good pace. Now.. of course, we can't take things for granted AND there is no guarantee that things will continue the way they are (at least at the micro scale - I am confident about the overall trend). We are naturally wired to operate on highlights and recent events, but the next time something horrible happens, I hope the media at least makes an effort to add a proper background.

Now, as to why exactly US crime has been dropping (interesting because it is lower than many developed countries), here are some specific reasons other that what Pinker gives : better law enforcement, more incarcerations more abortions (sorry!), the internet, some social programs, urban rejuvenation projects, better security, lead paint (!!), etc.

I have a thousand more things to say on this topic and better links to post, but as always, my blogging budget is too low (besides the football game just ended on TV and I've finished dinner). I have, however, done you (not as in 'you' but as in 'the general public other than you') a big favor. Click this link. Peace.

Edit: Wow.. quite a few messages, eh!  Let me add that declining violence is not always a guarantee by any means and even though you're safer, it will never be safe enough in any large country... and sure the police in most US cities are under tremendous pressure with meagre resources to fight crime with, so articles like this may appear to be in poor taste, but that is not the point. To quote Pinker "As one becomes aware of the historical decline of violence, the world begins to look different. The past seems less innocent, the present less sinister. One starts to appreciate the small gifts of coexistence that would have seemed utopian to our ancestors. For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment that we can savor". Though Pinker's arguments relate directly to the longer time scales, there are some lessons to be learnt.

University Rankings

Discussion about university rankings seem to be getting a lot of  press worldwide over the past few years, an interesting development because it used to be mostly an American obsession. Part of the reason - in my opinion -is that in the past, most people outside the US could afford to ignore rankings on the grounds that they were biased toward criteria that make the most sense in an American setting. 

ARWU Rankings

All the ignoring (well a good portion of it anyway) went out of the window in 2003 when a Chinese university (Shanghai Jiao-Tong) made a comprehensive ranking of world universities (apparently in an attempt to evaluate where Chinese universities stand and to eventually get them to the highest level). The criteria that this ranking uses is purely based on metrics that signify world class research such as Nobel Prizes, publications in top journals, citations of publications, etc. As subjective as they are, it turns out that these rankings are harder to ignore because every good university pretty much cares about such metrics. This has especially become a sore point in Continental Europe (and China and India) because just as in the other rankings, not many representatives are present. These rankings are updated every year and here are the 2012 numbers near the top and also for a few universities that I care about:

1. Harvard
2. Stanford
3. MIT
4. Berkeley
5. Cambridge
6. CalTech
10. Oxford
17. Johns Hopkins
20. Univ of Tokyo (Highest rated Asian university)
22. Michigan
23. ETH, Zurich (Highest rated European university)
38. Maryland

Some interesting facts:
- No Chinese or Indian universities in the Top 150
- Only one European univ in Top 25
- 17 of the Top 19 and 36 of the Top 50 are in the US
- 3 of the Top 6 and 6 of the Top 18 are in California

I would think that these numbers may be biased towards science-specific schools but then, rankings of specialized areas are also detailed (since 2007). Here are the Engineering rankings:

1. MIT
2. Stanford
3. Berkeley
4. Illinois
5. Texas
6. Santa Barbara
7. Michigan
13. Toronto (first non-US university)
14. Maryland
15. Cambridge
18. ETH Zurich
19. CalTech (no clue how this happened)

One Indian university (Indian Institute of Science) appears in the Top 50 and Top 100 in some disciplines.

Times World University Rankings

A broader set of criteria "teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook" are apparently considered in the Times Higher Education Rankings.   These rankings are also quite meticulous as Thomson Reuters seems to have put in a lot energy. Here is how this looks

1. CalTech
2. Oxford
3. Stanford
4. Harvard
5. MIT
7. Cambridge
9. Berkeley
12. ETH, Zurich
16. Johns Hopkins
20. Michigan
33. Illinois
97. Maryland (somewhat understandable as undergraduate programs aren't as highly regarded)

So what do I make of this? First of all, ranking universities isn't a very scientific thing to do and comparing universities across countries is so incredibly difficult. But you can definitely be assured that a Top 25 or a Top 50 university in either of the above rankings is among the absolute best in the world.

US News Rankings (of American Universities) : Undergraduate program
These rankings are no more scientific than anything else (but perhaps more reliable because standardized criteria apply much better in a national setting), but these matter a great deal as the American obsession with rankings plays a practical role (in school selection, hiring, etc unless you're talking Ivy league). While most university administrators (and department chairs) will pooh-pooh these rankings, I can guarantee you 100% that they care about these and very deeply so.  Department chairs and school Deans make improved showing in these rankings as one of their main job responsibilities. Here are the 2013-14 overall rankings (most Americans go by these numbers when they quote a ranking):

1. Harvard
1. Princeton
3. Yale
4. Columbia
4. Chicago
6. MIT
6. Stanford
10. CalTech
13. Johns Hopkins
21. Berkeley !
29. Michigan !
46. Illinois !
58. Maryland

Needless to say, every single school in the Top 20 is a private institution.

US News Ranking of Engineering schools (Graduate programs):
As a professor (or a grad student) these rankings start getting very relevant (criteria include acceptance rate, research funding per faculty member, membership in National Academies, etc)

1. MIT
2. Stanford
3. Berkeley
4. CalTech
5. Illinois
9. Michigan
19. Maryland
25. Johns Hopkins

US News Ranking of specific departments (Graduate level)
When each subject gets ranked, it gets pretty serious and department chairs (while they may publicly dismiss it as beauty pageants) get a bit nervous. Here are the Aerospace Engineering rankings.

1. CalTech
1. MIT
3. Stanford*
3. Michigan
5. Georgia Tech
6. Purdue
7. Illinois
8. Texas
11. Maryland

* Case in point: Last year we were #1 and we got self-congratulatory emails and discussion in faculty meetings. This year, rankings dismissed.

All said and done, people also use their own judgement to a good degree when choosing a school or a department, but rankings play a considerable role in reducing clutter.

Review / Summary of "India Grows at Night" by Gurucharan Das [Draft post]

This book is, in some ways, an extension of the author's (a Harvard grad and former CEO of Procter & Gamble India) fabulous first book "India Unbound," (2002) which is an account of the political, economic and sometimes social evolution of India from the years before independence to the turn of the present century. "India Unbound" was rather fascinating because it also serves - in part - as an autobiography as the material is presented through the viewing glasses of an executive who "suffered through" socialism and is ultimately jubilant about the fruits of liberalization and "capitalism". In that book, he basically asks bureaucracy to get out of the way.  

By the time he starts writing "India Grows at night" (2012), he admits to have had a change of heart and has transformed his views from from libertarian to "classic liberal."  Here, he calls for a "limited" rather than a "minimalist" state. This line of thought is reflected heavily in this book. In fact, he says he didn't call the book "India grows at night while the government sleeps" because he now realizes that the government has a first order role to play in economic development (by ensuring infrastructure, law and order, regulatory reform, etc) and any growth "in spite of the government" will be flawed and unsustainable. This is pretty much what got me hooked on to the book because I have been saying similar things for the past 5 years, even when the economy was seemingly red-hot (2007-2010). My understanding has always been that that the Indian economy has been picking low hanging fruit and we'd soon hit a wall unless the government gets serious about maaaany things.

He begins the book by quoting Fukuyama (who I didn't realize is at Stanford) that "A successful liberal democracy should have three things : A strong authority to allow quick and decisive action; a transparent rule of the law to ensure that the action is legitimate; and it is accountable to the people." The book points out India's failure in all three categories (although he does acknowledge limited success in some aspects), some historical reasoning behind the state-of-affairs and also a few ideas on the types of economic and more importantly institutional reform that will be required to get out of the rut. I agree - for the most part - with his historical views on why India has traditionally had a "weak state" and why law and order has always been an issue. Such discussions (and second-guessing history) aren't just of academic interest because they define India at the present time. As an example, consider the first question Egyptians asked him when he was speaking in Tahrir square: "How do you keep generals out of politics?" Well.. we take it for granted and there is no easy answer to this question, but sustaining a peaceful transfer of power *every single time* in a HUGE, noisy and largely poor country does give us something to think about in historical terms.

The last part of the book focuses on what he thinks should be the role of a new political party as he appears to be pretty much fed up with the "grievance politics" (i.e., making the voters a victim) of the major parties and the short-sightedness of the regional ones and opines that none of the existing parties are capable of reforming out-dated government institutions. He brings up Rajaji's Swatantra party as a role model for liberal politics, which is largely justified but is sure to be off-putting to some because of the brilliant founder's (rare but) controversial schemes (hereditary education, for one). I do agree with his assessment, however, that the Swatantra party was definitely ahead of its times and that some of its core principles will have much value.

As with most books that present socio-political commentaries, I think that the true worth of this book is not in the general idea but rather the anecdotes that get strewn around.  Now that the preamble is out of the way, here is a short summary of the book. I must say that because of old age and a lack of contiguous chunks of quality time, I have resorted to the habit of taking down notes while reading books, so here goes my unedited notes:

================ NOTES / SUMMARY =====================

He contrasts India's development from ancient times where, unlike China's intrusive and many times despotic rulers who "divested people of their property and rights," the ordinary person was defined by "the village, caste and the joint family," much removed from the king who didn't affect daily life. Further, unlike Europe, "diverse social groups in India had their own laws and customs" which preceded the state and that the duty of the ruler was just to "protect the respective customs and laws of this self-regulating order." Thus he makes the case that India has always had a weak state and a strong society (in contrast to China's strong state and weak society) and that "the solid society helped to check state power whereas the feeble state didn't return the favor". Thus caste, religion and kinship restricted the freedom of many ordinary people.

While he argues that the rule of the law is an "old idea in the west" and existed ever since Aristotle wrote 'the law should govern'," he also acknowledges that law originated in religion everywhere, "western juridicial systems were based on the concept of legality whereas Indian law was based on authority" (or a code of conduct) that was based on sacred texts but "custom often prevailed over the text" when administering justice. He thus claims that there has historically been arbitrariness in the application of justice in India until the British "removed uncertainty through codification," though not to the desired level of success. He then goes to talk about the pathetic state of affairs in delivering justice in India and brings up the terrible judicial delays and points out the well-known situation of cases taking 10, 20 or 30 years to resolve. Failure to effectively (and quickly) enforce the rule of the law brings about "unpredictability" (for instance, in the mind of investors) and "crony captialism" (in real estate, mining, power sector etc.). So the weakness in enforcing the law is a key impediment to the success of Indian democracy. There is a nice little section about the tension betwen the rational 'rule of the law' and the parochial 'rule of life' which I liked, but this discussion is largely academic and distracting to the main text.

He defines a strong liberal state as one "that is not an intrusive or meddling one, but rather one that has an invisible touch over its citizens." He distinguishes this from strong, unaccountable and opaque states such as those run by Mao, Stalin and you guessed it.. Hitler. He, however, calls present day India as a "Flailing state - one where it fails appallingly when it is needed (such as ensuring health, drinking water, education, law and order) and hyperactive in issues such as tying the citizen in miles or red tape and its 'inspector raj' mentality." He says that the British built sound legal and bureaucractic institutions and a very good civil service. After independence and over time, however, India's leaders did not "modernize or expand the capability of its institutions," which is especially terrible because the country's ambitions increased many-fold. Again, he focuses on excessive red-tape and an outdated bureaucracy (and civil services).

The 'wonders' of the reforms of '91 are then discussed and he makes a claim that captialism has a natural home in a democracy like India because such a system "nurtures entreprenuers and innovation" well and that "many state controlled Chinese companies envy many of India's private firms". However, things like property rights and a nexus between business houses, civil servants and politicians are brought about by poor governance and are especially problematic after the big growth spurt from '91. He says that since India is in transition, this is a great time to unleash reforms in many sectors and bring in good regulators to enforce fair competition.

He says India's political parties cater to a "politics of grievance", basically running on making the voter a 'victim of' one of a number of things rather than focusing on real, big problems. As the middle class expands, however, the number of people who aspire will overtake the number of people who consider themselves victims and so he hopes that higher expectations will drive progress. This politics of expectations existed before, i.e. until 1964 when Nehru died. He claims it reared its head briefly for a couple of years in the late 80's/early 90's and then gave way to the "politics of giveaways" such as the one in Tamil Nadu. He then brings up three concerns in politics ; emergence of family-based political dynasties, criminal politicians and political opposition for the sake of opposition.

Next, he narrows down on the causes of corruption : lack of freedom like the license raj (exists even now for instance in the mining industry);  lack of transparency and incomplete reforms (2G scam) and giveaways/subsidies. Corruption can be controlled if "decision-making is transparent, discretion
is reduced, rent seeking opportunities are removed, punishments handed to guilty officers and if incentives are changed from a seniority system."

He recommends the setting up of a new "secular, liberal political party" in India. Its action points are "to reform key institutions of the government; decentralize power from center to states and from states to local bodies; push agenda for the second round of reforms for better economy and better governance; promote civic education in citizenship; nudge middle-class towards active engagement in citizenship. The last point is emphasized as he wants citizens to be more engaged in their local ward/communities and finally, enter politics. The new party should be transparent in its dealings and be built bottom-up.

In calling for a strong liberal state, he wants a limited state rather than a minimalist state. He was more of laissez-faire man, but seeing india's recent slow down, he things government is not a second order phenomenon but rather one that is first order and is required for sustainability and to regulate. Reminds us of the three pillars and that India got all three during independence, but couldn't handle the pressure on institutions and socialism didn't help at all. License raj is an outcome of socialism and the decline continues till today with crony capitalism. We've become a flailing state - "a weak and intrusive" one. The budding middle class is "held hostage to corruption, poor public services and governance  failure". Demand for governance reform should come out of the growing middle class which should also enter politics and transform institutions crying for change.