[drtom]

ROI: But if there are ROIs that are not too obvious or not too quick like theoretical astrophysics - the market approach would shut that down. The number of people who are able to understand t.a. and its merits at a level that they would feel it's worth supporting would be significantly less than the psych supporters. Your music example is very good. Symphony orchestras all over the country have money problems. Chances are this education would have a problem to survive through market-funding (sadly, pop music and music education are usually mutually exclusive). Yet, I wouldn't want to travel to Europe to see a good classical concert just because American musicians aren't funded.

And Cambridge pays for Hawking, not the taxpayer

Not really. His chair is base-funded so it is the taxpayer's money that pays for it.

Oh, my pizza arrived. I'm off this thread but might check back later. Good chatting with you R/S! Good luck with your EduBonds.

[Remember_Salamis]

"ROIs that are not too obvious or not too quick like theoretical astrophysics - the market approach would shut that down."

-- Well, you're falling into a trap that government funds ALL education, when in fact tons of private money flows in as well, like scholarships. In reality, federal funding of education is only a tiny fraction of overall education funding.

"Not really. His chair is base-funded so it is the taxpayer's money that pays for it."

-- I didn't know Cambridge he was taxpayer-funded; I thought it was private like American Ivy League Schools. Hawkin's equivelant in a US Ivy league school would fit my description of an edquate ROI, however.