I don't disagree; but indeed, there is an argument that even those who value "useful" disciplines should heed here.

That same crass approach ultimately dries up innovation in the sciences (and by extension, later technology transfer) as well, because it only looks at relative simplistic/short-term cost-benefit and risk analysis. Basic research? Who needs it! All just a waste of money and resources. Those people should be making better widgets and at lower cost...

Jon makes a good point (he makes good ones elsewhere also, to be sure) about that superficial way of viewing things, which SHOULD have made him an ideal candidate for "free education" as a sure thing from the taxpayer perspective. In reality, I think that he's suggesting that from a societal standpoint, that $$ could have been better invested in someone in the top 20% who actually was DRIVEN by love and passion and would stay in the field, rather than the top 1% driven by nothing more than ennui.

Great word, ennui.





Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.