Saturday, October 28, 2006

Is there a more spoiled class on Earth thatn American College students? Read this story. I think it merits a complete response.

Corey Goodman and Carla Shatz had a grand vision for UC Berkeley: to build the greatest neuroscience program in the world, to figure out how healthy brains work, and to use that understanding to cure disease.

They wanted a place where chemists and physicists, geneticists and other scientists could work alongside neurobiologists like themselves to unlock the secrets of the body's most mysterious organ. They wanted to change the world. The university wanted them to do it.

But there was no money to build their neuroscience center or equip their hoped-for high-tech laboratories. Today, Shatz is pursuing similar research at Harvard Medical School, and Goodman is the chief executive of a biotechnology company that develops drugs to treat neurological disease.


Harvard is a private institution. How did they do it?

"I was told, 'Corey, help us raise money for X, Y and Z, and then we'll get around to yours,' " said Goodman, who took a leave of absence in 2001 to start Renovis and resigned his tenured position last year. "I didn't want to wait five years for my turn to come up. When I see something is good for society and good for research, I want to go for it."


Good, so his research is going to be done/

Instead of going for it at Berkeley, Goodman just left, albeit reluctantly. And he is just one in a line of prestigious researchers who have abandoned the university in recent years — or are threatening to today — in part because UC Berkeley simply cannot afford to build enough labs, upgrade technology or even keep the floors shiny.


Let's start with cutting all of the chearleading majors-Gay studies, various ethnic studies. Then we can get rid of their snazzy gyms and resort-like dorms.

As voters consider Proposition 1D — the $10.4-billion bond measure to benefit California's schools, colleges and universities — some say UC Berkeley offers a cautionary tale about what happens when the state fails to invest enough money to keep its very foundation healthy, let alone accommodate growth.

California has added some 10 million people in the last 20 years and is expected to grow at about the same pace in the next 20. But growth has barely registered this campaign season, its discussion relegated to a series of bond measures that at best would patch the state's crumbling infrastructure. If they pass — and that's a big "if."


At least the LA Times isn't biased.

As it strains to keep up with technological innovation, protect against the Big One and safeguard its reputation while absorbing a decade of enrollment growth, UC Berkeley could be a stand-in for the state that created it.


So regulation like earthquake retrofitting does cause hardships.

The oldest school in the University of California system, Berkeley is ranked as the leading public university in America by U.S. News & World Report. It sits atop the Hayward fault and has spent more than $300 million in the last 20 years retrofitting its aging buildings to meet stiff seismic standards. But it needs twice that, and another decade, to complete the job.

The campus has nearly $600 million in deferred maintenance costs and struggles to keep roofs patched, pipes sound and heating and ventilation systems working. It no longer washes windows, waxes floors, replaces worn carpets or paints interior walls.
Plastic sheeting is tacked above equipment in some Birge Hall physics labs as protection from dripping pipes. The chairwoman of the music department raided research funds two years ago to paint dingy hallways so picky donors wouldn't turn away. Only 30% of the university's classrooms are wired for updated teaching technology.


I've got an idea. Instead of another Iraq War teach-in, why don't the students get together and fix some of that stuff? Or maybe hire cheaper workers.



The School of Public Health's main building cannot be seismically retrofitted and is slated for demolition. To date, there is no money to build a replacement, and Dean Stephen Shortell is trying to raise $150 million for his school's new home. "Securing the necessary funding is critical for the future of public health in California," he said.

Nervous administrators hope other distinguished faculty don't turn their backs on the Bay Area, lured away by institutions offering facilities UC Berkeley can only dream of. And they worry about how long their university's stellar reputation can last in the face of budget constraints and wealthy Ivy League competitors.

"We are in a war for our intellectual talent right now with major institutions that are far better-funded than we are," said A. Richard Newton, dean of Berkeley's College of Engineering. "We as a society just have to decide: Is this something that we're prepared to invest in, or not?"


Competition- You gotta love it.

One of the toughest battles for Berkeley is over the future of renowned bioengineer Luke P. Lee, an expert in the field of bio-nanotechnology who is on a leave of absence. The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology has made Lee a full professor for systems nanobiology, crowing in a press release that he is "one of the world's leading experts in the area of micro-fluidics and 'Lab-on-a-Chip' technology."

Lee did not respond to requests for comment. But Berkeley administrators said the Zurich-based institute made the bioengineer a "staggering" offer of facilities and financial support — something they could never even meet, let alone best. Still, they remain hopeful that Berkeley's cachet can woo him back.

"He's said, 'Let's see what you can do in the next year,' " Newton recounted. "He absolutely, positively does not want to leave Berkeley…. [But] he wants to make an impact on the world that is profound and deep through his teaching and work. The challenge: Can he do that in an institution that is not making the necessary investments?"


Those money-grubbing, profiteering academics.


Although Berkeley is a state institution, money from California's general fund covers less than 30% of its annual expenditures, down from about 50% in the late 1970s and early 1980s.


Has their operating budget decreased in that time? No, it's probably gone up much fater than inflation.

No comments: