Saying that MIT is a corporate whore in no way says that it is lesser or greater than the university of Toronto. It just says that MIT is a corporate whore.
As to my 'research' methods, in my opinion, one can not get more non-bias than a report issued by the United Nations. In fact, many of the statistics you listed in your sources were garnered from UN reports. What does this mean? It means that rather than going to an online source that is using interpretation on the report, I went directly to it. The first site I chose I placed there knowing full well it was a bias towards canadian information, it was a canadian site. But if you will have noted, I followed that information up by siting the direct source. The United Nations Human Developement Report.
I even chopped it down for you and pointed directly to the areas on Education and Social developement, rather than force you to skim the entire 250+ page document. If I did the Canadian information twice, I do apologize. This is not a term paper, so I am not being as anal as I would be. If you do take a look at the site, you can at your own leasure change between the statistics and information of any country in the UN by using a pull down menu.
As to countering your 84 or 68 or 15000 universities, the numbers of 'high ranked' universities are for the most part irrelevant. Access to them is so limited that they are unused by the populace. Sure, they churn out smarties and high enders, but what about the general state of education in the country?
As I pointed out, the United Nations has shown that American education on the whole is a lot less potent than Canada, or Norway, or Sweden, or others who appear further up the list.
As to -why- I think corporate funding of an education institution is 'bad'. This is simple, the ideas and concepts that are coming into the hands of these corporations through university research are not going to be given or shared to the masses. They will be -SOLD- to the masses at a profit. This implies a level of exclusivity. And, frankly, a university should be a neutral learning ground, it should not put you out into the world with a predisposition towards any one corporation, or towards one political leaning based on the way the institution is funded. I find it dis-tasteful to say the least.
The question one really needs to ask is this: Do YOU want some of the GREATEST minds in the WORLD in the hands of Nike? Coke? Pfizer? Cargil? Monsanto? In the hands of institutions that do not -CARE- for humanity, but only care for the profit margin?
And the end product will always be twisted by the funding source. If I am a researcher funded by Pfizer, I will be automatically bias towards these companies. If I was a cancer researcher, I would be beholden to Pfizer for the funding grant my research proposal recives. I would be in Pfizers pocket, and all my research would do less to advance mankind, and more to advance the pocket of Pfizer.
I don't know about you Sidd, but I see that as a very negative thing. And you are incorrect in thinking that this has nothing to do with a socialist or capitalist government. Both of these governing styles dictate the manner in which corporations and the government fund institutions such as universities.
Now, rather than you and I snipping and quibbling over universities, as we both have been doing, perhaps I can address you on Socialism.
Firstly, I think you need to examine what socialism actually is, especially in the context in which I am discussing it. It is NOT the abolishion of free enterprise. It is NOT the abolishion of capitalism. What socialism -does- represent is a system of government in which basic social needs and the systems that are needed to provide these needs are controled by the government, NOT by private industry.
Now, your primary issue here is 'how does the population control the government in a socialist state.' Correct?
This is simple. A socialist state is -still- a democracy. The officials in the government are elected. Whats more, I am a proponent of a direct democracy. Now, I am going to assume that you understand what a direct democracy is, if not, let me know, and I will get you a definintion.
Now, I take this a bit further in my theoretical political system. In my view, all major issues voted on by 'representatives' can be voted on by the entire populace. Keep in mind I am simplifying here, there would need to be systems for regional and national areas, especially in countries the size of Canada or the US or China and other similarly large nations where you have vast areas with large differances in needs.
But, in a nut shell, issues that occure that require voting of representatives would be voted on directly by the populace. The government would be less about setting the policies, more about providing information to the populace on situations, tableing bills and law changes, that sort of thing. When it comes down to the vote, the population of the country votes, not the representatives.
How can this be done you ask?
Simple. We have a level of technology that would easily enable us to set up voting stations all over the urban and rural landscapes. We can even take it a step further, and each citizen could be given a voting 'pad' or 'device' much like a cell phone that connects to a national network. Over this network individuals could vote, and the scores could be tabulated, and a direct representation of the needs of the populace would be enacted on.
It would be as easy as a simple trinary system: Yes, No, Abstain.
Non-votes would be counted as non-votes, not abstains.
In this manner the population of a nation directly controls the governing body. This places the basic needs of the nation in the hands of the citizenry. It by-passes the concept of a lobby group a great deal, as there are far too many individuals to 'bribe' as it were. It would lower corruption a great deal, because in order to be corrupted, you would have to 'corrupt' the majority of the population, not simply a few individuals who are elected to represent the masses.
Does that clarify for you?
As to media bubbles: We all live in one. You live in one dominated by American media. I live in one dominated by Canadian media. In fact, in North America the majority of news outlets are controled by 5 corporations, which means there is a great opprotunity for collusion between them in controling what the population sees on the news. That is part of the problem in both Canada, and to a greater extent, the United States, a lack of media opinions and examination.
I also find you to have been highly insulting. You turn and say 'You did this, you started this, you stated that, you brought up this' when, in many cases, it was yourself Sidd who was the instigator. But in the end, it is irrelevant.
I do hope that the above statments have clarified for you how the population would control the government. Now, as to my comments on sex and various other statements: You really need to learn how to read jokes and witticisms for what they are when they appear.
