[OutsiderFan]

Not to get into a political discussion, but, there is a book coming out this week called "What Money Can't Buy."  I downloaded and read the first chapter on iBooks.  It's premise is to question whether turning everything into a market makes sense and really is in our best interest as a country.  I bring this up because what Farm93 is suggesting may have some merit, that the UF is expecting white knight donors to step up and save the program, but even that could carry an unwanted cost.

The issue is basically that when this is done (funding is provided by a few with money, and it isn't a shared public sacrifice), you essentially are selling to the highest bidders.  The implications in the UF example might be that the best talent the CS program produces will be pushed to the donors' preferences, like perhaps the companies they own.  Or research might be done on things that aren't going to best serve the citizens.  If the program was funded by the citizens of Florida, then the best talent might be free to start their own companies doing their own things that might benefit all the citizens of the state, or things could be researched that improve the state.  Pushing the narrow and selfish interests of a few donors puts an outsized premium on wealth accumulation, shuts out many people from the opportunity to have a say in their lives, and creates the conditions for corruption and cheating because if the only way to get ahead is with more money, well...

The book is quite interesting and raises a lot of issues that go to the fabric of what it means to live in a society.  This UF CS example is quite instructive, and has the potential for major implications.  There very well could be long-term costs to relying on markets to solve our problems, unforeseen in the here and now.

[OutsiderFan]

Not to get into a political discussion, but, there is a book coming out this week called "What Money Can't Buy."  I downloaded and read the first chapter on iBooks.  It's premise is to question whether turning everything into a market makes sense and really is in our best interest as a country.  I bring this up because what Farm93 is suggesting may have some merit, that the UF is expecting white knight donors to step up and save the program, but even that could carry an unwanted cost.

The issue is basically that when this is done (funding is provided by a few with money, and it isn't a shared public sacrifice), you essentially are selling to the highest bidders.  The implications in the UF example might be that the best talent the CS program produces will be pushed to the donors' preferences, like perhaps the companies they own.  Or research might be done on things that aren't going to best serve the citizens.  If the program was funded by the citizens of Florida, then the best talent might be free to start their own companies doing their own things that might benefit all the citizens of the state, or things could be researched that improve the state.  Pushing the narrow and selfish interests of a few donors puts an outsized premium on wealth accumulation, shuts out many people from the opportunity to have a say in their lives, and creates the conditions for corruption and cheating because if the only way to get ahead is with more money, well...

The book is quite interesting and raises a lot of issues that go to the fabric of what it means to live in a society.  This UF CS example is quite instructive, and has the potential for major implications.  There very well could be long-term costs to relying on markets to solve our problems, unforeseen in the here and now.