Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (183164)	3/8/2006 10:07:36 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Because your measurement is poor. And, because you are doing statistical analysis of "a number of profs" rather than enough to get a good guide. How are you measuring their performance? All I know are ones in the EE department. Things like seminole papers, key textbooks, and reputation in their field. However, if you want a more expanded version, look at the US News annual rankings of American universities and colleges. From year to year it always moves about a bit, but UC Berkeley is a very well regarded tech school, in the same league as Stanford, Cal Tech, and MIT. More to the point, I don't think there are any real differences to the profs, between the environment at these schools whether they are owned by a private corporation or foundation or whether the state owns them. That is my main point to you. You think that the ownership magically changes the environment. IMO, it need not. The environment is different only if laws or policy require it to be different. The government could own 80% of Intel, and still choose to dole out stock options to management, and allow management complete control of the company, provided US law did not object to such ownership, in which case the environment there would be identical to the case if 80% of Intel where owned by investment institutions, which take a similar hands off policy.