I will throw out the following on academics (a massive bunny trail). Please send this to the political forum or delete it if it is out of place.
Do taxpayers get a greater return on their investment by getting more research funding? I realize there is greater academic prestige, but does that equate to students getting a better education? I say this as someone who worked in a center for research for four years. There were some super bright people there, but it helped students and taxpayers not one iota - and it was at least in a practical field, not 13th Century Lowland Germanic Studies or something.
This is why I favor the Joe Johnson model, BUT I am very wary of academic inbreeding. That's a major problem at most universities.
That's a good question and it is not the same in all academic areas. I can tell you that in Business and the STEM fields it most definitely has an impact on all levels of education. The College of Engineering here gets almost 2/3 of its funding from external sources, nearly all of that being grants and contracts for research projects. The wonderful thing about that for undergraduates is that (1) it means better faculty connected with current research, giving them a chance to be near the cutting edge and taught by people respected in their field; and (2) for the lucky ones (and the more research, the more lucky ones) it provides them opportunities to be involved in the research itself. We have a number of faculty who involve undergraduates in their research and that is an unreal opportunity that they would not likely get if they went to a less research-focused school. We could add a (3) to that, which is that big research schools rise in the rankings and make the degrees more valuable for those who earn them.
Another wonderful thing about the College getting so much of its funding from research grants is that it can be steered through tough budgetary periods because it's not completely dependent upon its base budget from the Chancellor (which comes from the state).
One final thing is strong research programs attract top level grad students, many of whom go on to be very wealthy alumni. We have one new engineering building partially funded by Min Kao (Garmin) and another under construction partially funded by John Tickle (Strongwell Corp.). Those buildings will benefit everyone, including the undergraduates who will have new classroom and lab space. Obviously having these alumni offers the opportunity for reinvestment and re-enrichment of the college, which in turn means more good faculty and students down the road, and so on and so on.
I've emphasized Engineering because it's what I know, but the same is true for strong research programs in math and the sciences as well as business, education, social work, etc. Those programs being more self-sustaining and research-driven helps enable the university to keep other programs (humanities, social sciences, music, etc.) open when they risk being cut by universities more reliant on base budgets from the state and tuition.
I ramble, but you see my point. A university with a strong emphasis on research is a university with the ability to sustain and better itself.
