> purpose of the university is ostensibly to provide an education
One of the purposes. They’re also centres for learning and research and repositories of knowledge.
One of the purposes. They’re also centres for learning and research and repositories of knowledge.
Cool. This isn't how the word works in practice. More importantly, it isn't how the trustees of the people who gave those universities the money asked for it to be used. (Nor the government or the granting agencies.)
> if an organization only did research but didn't teach I would not say they get to call themselves a university any more
Again, cool. This isn't true in reality. Research universities famously put research first, which is why they can attract top faculty.
Without research there would be nothing new to teach, Without research diseases wouldn't be cured. A lot of amazing things we have came from universities.
1- https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231...
UPenn’s revenue includes “sales of assets” and “investment income,” i.e., taking some part of the endowment annually to fund their operations.
It's not a pile of gold sitting in a vault on campus. It's an account which is productively invested and generating returns which are what's actually used for funding operations. A $20 billion endowment would be expected to produce about $1 billion per year, or around 20% of the annual operating budget. They need to bring in about $4 Billion more dollars per year to keep the lights on.
The point of an endowment is to provide long term support for whatever the purpose is of that endowment. That is done by investing it and using the investment earnings for that purpose.
There is something ironic about people who work in start-ups arguing for endowments to be spent down. Who do you think gives money to the VC funds?
No. There are non-teaching research universities. Many universities have non-teaching faculty. Learning != teaching != education.