> The lesson of the USSR seems to have been... ...that victors write the history books. Seriously, the notion that there was a single cause for the decline of

> The lesson of the USSR seems to have been... ...that victors write the history books. Seriously, the notion that there was a single cause for the decline of the USSR -- and that this cause corresponds exactly to the ideologies at the heart of its antagonistic relationship with its enemies -- is prime facia suspicious. There were a myriad of economic, structural, political, environmental, geopolitical, and military reasons for the collapse of the USSR. Boiling all of that down to "Socialism Bad" is a nice rallying cry, but not exactly a helpful analysis (or at all likely to be very accurate). >... because the inefficient universities would be out competed by the efficient ones What does this even mean? What does it mean for a university to be "efficient"? I think you're confusing what ideology claims should happen with observable reality; namely, that higher education in the US is 1) closer to a free market than peer nations; and 2) horrendously more expensive than peer nations. >... because universities are not a perfectly free market It's one thing to say "we don't know what works, so let's try the thing that one particular ideology prescribes." It's another thing to say "Those people over there don't have our problem. I bet the reason is because we're not doubled down on the exact opposite of what they're doing." In any case, I think I answered above why a free market won't fix higher education: brand names / flashy stadiums / dorms / academic buildings sell better than good instruction and solid research.