Posted on 02/20/2015 7:35:53 AM PST by Academiadotorg
Universities may want to adopt a basic rule to avoid mission creep: When you have failed in your basic task, it is probably not a good idea to enter into new ventures outside of that undertaking.
With graduation rates that could at best be described as anemic and skill mastery among graduates which might be characterized as pathetic, universities are venturing into the world of venture capitalism.
Universities across the country have developed entrepreneurship programs in recent years aimed at encouraging students and faculty to turn promising business ideas into actual companies, Steven Overly reported in the Washington Post on Valentines Day. Now, an increasing number of them also are giving money to help those businesses get started.
In the past several months, some of the nations top universities have poured millions of dollars into venture capital funds. The goal is to help promising businesses secure much-needed money while also giving the university a chance to reap handsome returns if the firms find success.
But venture capital is a high-risk, high-reward investment. The vast majority of start-up companies fail to make it big, so investors often back many of them in hopes that one or two will yield a significant financial return.
As a result, some critics have questioned whether universities should dedicate a portion of their budgets to such risky investments, especially when many states are slashing higher-education funding and tuition is reaching historic highs.
In the Washington area, universities have organized networks of investors and introduced them to promising start-ups, many of them having ties to the institutions. But others are going further.
The University of California announced the creation of a $250 million venture fund in September that will be invested in companies with ties to its network of schools, medical centers and research labs.
Unis have had their fingers in spinoff companies for decades, not to speak of doing direct DOD research in the past.
The problem is rather that they are not truly in the free market in that they do not teach all ideas and debate them equally. They prefer to teach one side that is anti-capitalist in economic terms so they don't have much of a foundation from which to work. Now they want to take on a capitalist model without the fundamental knowledge that would make their "business" a lot easier and more successful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.