I'd argue that the fraction of income that goes to administration should be regulated and capped to a fraction of the whole. Ultimately, most administration has little to do with education, and lots to do with expanding and increasing its own income.
On the other hand, giving money to institutions like NASA, CERN, INRIA and the likes is overall beneficial to society and its out of such institutions that we can make progress that benefits the overall good.
It's been established that companies exist only for the purpose of enriching the stock holders (according to CEOs that follow Welch's paradigm), therefore companies don't generally have any incentive to push for innovation and publish their findings unless that — in one way or the other — benefits them.
I'd argue that the fraction of income that goes to administration should be regulated and capped to a fraction of the whole. Ultimately, most administration has little to do with education, and lots to do with expanding and increasing its own income.
On the other hand, giving money to institutions like NASA, CERN, INRIA and the likes is overall beneficial to society and its out of such institutions that we can make progress that benefits the overall good.
It's been established that companies exist only for the purpose of enriching the stock holders (according to CEOs that follow Welch's paradigm), therefore companies don't generally have any incentive to push for innovation and publish their findings unless that — in one way or the other — benefits them.