IMO equating the research done at Stanford to "just a business" is inaccurate in the extreme. While it is undoubtedly true that the major "research universities" do indeed receive lots of funding from sponsored research, the academic benefits of this research are very real. At the simplest level, the funding provided to hordes of graduate students allows said students to pursue research relevant to their chosen profession without needing to go deeply into debt. Many graduate students simply couldn't/wouldn't go into research if they had to pay for it themselves. The research itself often requires facilities and equipment that the universities couldn't buy if they had to do so on their "own nickle".
On top of that, many faculty would not join/remain at a university that could not provide an environment that included the ability to do cutting-edge research. These faculty expect to run a lab and also expect to attract post-docs to manage the day-to-day activities of said lab. These faculty write for grants that are competitive. The reputation of the applicant does matter, no matter what the theory states. The reputation of the university matters a lot too. It is absolutely true that grant applications from Stanford get funded at a greater rate than (fill in the blank directional U). This is where a lot of the money comes from and is a never-ending task. The post-docs also have to write for grants. The PI can often fund them for a while but normally post-docs are expected to at least attempt to get grants that pay their salary.
If a grad student or post-doc intends to remain in academia, they need to learn this "game". Most do not chose academia, because there are way too few "slots" for them and if they do not get a job at a"name" school getting grants is going to be very difficult. It is also often true that they discover an aptitude/interest in something that is better pursued in industry. That is where a lot of the Stanford "success stories" originate. However, one must remember these opportunities would not arise without the research structure created by the funding provided by external research grants/contracts.
Many of the PIs in these research projects also teach classes. Some of them do it willingly and enthusiastically. Most try to avoid it, but if you come in as a tenure-seeking candidate in most departments, you have to do some teaching. Most such faculty do have seminars that they lead to at east give the appearance of doing something that has to do with education. Sometimes these are quite interesting, even if it "guest" lecturers lots of the time. Without the research opportunities, these people simply wouldn't be at Stanford, period.
There are plenty of industrial (commercial) research establishments in the Bay area. While they are all different from each other, they are all very much different than a "academic" research establishment. The "academic" research establishments provide the people to do the commercial research. Academic research also often provides the "basic" research that creates new fields and new applications. It is a fundamentally different beast. Both are desirable, but equating the two is inaccurate.
On top of that, many faculty would not join/remain at a university that could not provide an environment that included the ability to do cutting-edge research. These faculty expect to run a lab and also expect to attract post-docs to manage the day-to-day activities of said lab. These faculty write for grants that are competitive. The reputation of the applicant does matter, no matter what the theory states. The reputation of the university matters a lot too. It is absolutely true that grant applications from Stanford get funded at a greater rate than (fill in the blank directional U). This is where a lot of the money comes from and is a never-ending task. The post-docs also have to write for grants. The PI can often fund them for a while but normally post-docs are expected to at least attempt to get grants that pay their salary.
If a grad student or post-doc intends to remain in academia, they need to learn this "game". Most do not chose academia, because there are way too few "slots" for them and if they do not get a job at a"name" school getting grants is going to be very difficult. It is also often true that they discover an aptitude/interest in something that is better pursued in industry. That is where a lot of the Stanford "success stories" originate. However, one must remember these opportunities would not arise without the research structure created by the funding provided by external research grants/contracts.
Many of the PIs in these research projects also teach classes. Some of them do it willingly and enthusiastically. Most try to avoid it, but if you come in as a tenure-seeking candidate in most departments, you have to do some teaching. Most such faculty do have seminars that they lead to at east give the appearance of doing something that has to do with education. Sometimes these are quite interesting, even if it "guest" lecturers lots of the time. Without the research opportunities, these people simply wouldn't be at Stanford, period.
There are plenty of industrial (commercial) research establishments in the Bay area. While they are all different from each other, they are all very much different than a "academic" research establishment. The "academic" research establishments provide the people to do the commercial research. Academic research also often provides the "basic" research that creates new fields and new applications. It is a fundamentally different beast. Both are desirable, but equating the two is inaccurate.