[jayasena]

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.

I'm not sure this is all that different from where things are already headed at most universities as far as research directions and student access are concerned. For example, both Stanford's and Cal's EE/CS/EECS departments have various affiliate programs, retreats etc. where companies that (partially) fund high-profile research programs get to influence research directions, priority access to graduate students (most students from these projects seem to end up at those companies upon graduation) etc. Short of indentured servitude, it's hard to envision how things could get much worse in those aspects.

I do agree with Roberton3 -- this will, however, be a big negative on faculty recruiting. I can't imagine a department entirely reliant on its own devices to secure every bit of of its research funding, and even money for teaching assistants, being an attractive place to be for young faculty. And there will likely be concerns about undue external influence on tenure decisions, what faculty members may or may not do on sabbaticals etc.

This development is particularly disturbing in the current environment where there appears to be an exodus of CS and EE faculty members (including some very-well-established ones) to industry. Moves like this one from UF could make new graduates think twice about a career in academia in general and make matters worse for all academic institutions. Who would want to go into a tenure track position with this sort of uncertainty hanging over your research efforts?

[jayasena]

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.

I'm not sure this is all that different from where things are already headed at most universities as far as research directions and student access are concerned. For example, both Stanford's and Cal's EE/CS/EECS departments have various affiliate programs, retreats etc. where companies that (partially) fund high-profile research programs get to influence research directions, priority access to graduate students (most students from these projects seem to end up at those companies upon graduation) etc. Short of indentured servitude, it's hard to envision how things could get much worse in those aspects.

I do agree with Roberton3 -- this will, however, be a big negative on faculty recruiting. I can't imagine a department entirely reliant on its own devices to secure every bit of of its research funding, and even money for teaching assistants, being an attractive place to be for young faculty. And there will likely be concerns about undue external influence on tenure decisions, what faculty members may or may not do on sabbaticals etc.

This development is particularly disturbing in the current environment where there appears to be an exodus of CS and EE faculty members (including some very-well-established ones) to industry. Moves like this one from UF could make new graduates think twice about a career in academia in general and make matters worse for all academic institutions. Who would want to go into a tenure track position with this sort of uncertainty hanging over your research efforts?