
##4000054 Section : Features Research sheds new light on the origin of humanity 's most intimate quadruped ally <p> The poor dog , " wrote poet Lord Byron in a flight of emotion , " in life the firmest friend , The first to welcome , foremost to defend . " And certainly , few animal lovers would care to differ . The dog , after all , is commonly referred to as man 's best friend , and unquestionably serves a wide range of human purposes . Thanks to artificial selection , there are dogs that guard houses and dogs that herd livestock , dogs that locate game birds for shooting and dogs that retrieve game birds that have been shot , dogs that pull sleds and dogs that sit languidly in human laps . <p> Clearly , the relationship between dog and human runs deep in our culture and our psyches . No surprise , then , that the origin of the domestic dog has long been a matter for speculation and inquiry . But now , new techniques of molecular biology are allowing researchers to trace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways previously unavailable to traditional wildlife biologists , taxonomists , and archeologists . Investigators are making great strides in understanding the origin of the domestic dog , even though results are often subject to dispute and controversy , as might be expected of research on a creature that is genetically complex . <p> " No other species is so diverse , " says Robert Wayne , a University of California-Los Angeles evolutionary biologist who has just completed the largest study ever on dog genetics and evolution . " Dogs are a model for how rapid morphological change might take place in a natural population . " They also offer clues as to how genetic vigor can be maintained in domestic species . <p> One of the key questions of dog evolution focuses on the source : From what wild creature did the domestic dog arise ? Charles Darwin suggested that the close relationship between wolves , coyotes , and jackals-all of which can interbreed-so muddies questions of which species yielded the dog that " we shall probably never be able to ascertain the dog 's origins with certainty . " Austrian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1950s by suggesting that some dog breeds may derive from jackals , others from wolves . Other biologists have proposed that dogs sprang from coyotes . Archeological evidence collected at ancient human homesites does not help , because the bones of animals in the process of domestication generally do not reveal intermediate steps between wild forebears and modern domestic animals . <p> New genetic evidence marshaled by Wayne and his colleagues lends strong support to the wolf advocates . As Wayne 's team reported in the 13 June Science , they analyzed mitochondrial DNA from 140 domestic dogs representing 67 breeds and five crossbreeds , then compared the dogs ' sequences with DNA from 162 wolves collected at 27 localities worldwide as well as with DNA from five coyotes and eight Simien , two golden , and two black-backed jackals . <p> " The genetic data strongly suggest that the wolf is the progenitor of the domestic dog , " Wayne says . Dog gene sequences differ from those of wolves by at most 12 nucleotide substitutions , whereas dog sequences differ from coyote and jackal sequences by at least 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ " very different genetically from wolves and dogs , " Wayne says . <p> Identifying these genetic differences did more than establish the wolf as ancestor to the domestic dog . It also yielded further conclusions about dog evolution that surprised even Wayne himself and engendered dispute with other experts . <p> Based on studies of canid bones found at human archeological sites , researchers have traditionally placed the domestic dog 's origins at about 10,000-14,000 years ago . As discussed in the Science article , Wayne and his colleagues ' molecular data indicate that the dog actually is much older . Wayne 's lab did a smaller study of wolf and dog nuclear DNA which showed that the two animals differ by only 1-2% of their gene sequences . Because fossil data show that wolves and coyotes , which differ genetically by 7.5% , diverged approximately 1 million years ago , Wayne calculates that the genetic difference between wolf and dog suggests that they separated about 135,000 years ago . If his conclusion is correct , then the dog is by far humanity 's oldest domestic animal . The second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10,000 years ago . <p> Such a surprising assertion has inevitably spawned controversy . If wolves and dogs diverged when Wayne suggests , some experts ask , then why does the archeological record fail to show morphological differences between wolf and dog fossils until about 14,000 years ago ? Wayne guesses that a phenotypic divergence between the two animals began only after humanity converted from hunter-gatherer cultures to more agricultural societies about 10,000-15,000 years ago , imposing new selective regimes on dogs . <p> Darcy Morey , an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville whose doctoral dissertation focused on the evolution of humankind 's relationship with the dog , disagrees with Wayne 's interpretation of the evidence . " How could so fundamental an ecological change occur between wild and domestic populations without altering the animals ' size and form ? " Morey asks . <p> Wayne 's research is " an elegant study , " geneticist Stephen O'Brien says , but it presumes that the mitochondrial DNA clock runs at a constant rate through time . " That might not be correct , " says O'Brien , chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Frederick , Maryland . O'Brien , who has done genetic studies on wild and domestic cats , says that calculating precise dates is difficult , particularly if altered sex ratios or population bottlenecks affect a species ' evolution . <p> Wayne agrees that mitochondrial DNA , which evolves rapidly and at uneven rates of change , gives only a rough estimate of the evolutionary relationship between species . But , because mitochondrial DNA does mutate rapidly , he believes that it is the best currently available method for gauging genetic change . He admits that his study may inflate the date of origin for the domestic dog , but he contends that his evidence is nevertheless correct in indicating that the dog did arise long before the date ascribed to it by archeological evidence . Wayne plans to test micro-satellites , a set of fast-evolving nuclear genes , to confirm the mitochondrial DNA results . Wolves become dogs <p> Regardless of when wolves came into the human domain , the relationship wrought fundamental changes on the wolf , remolding the wild animal . Most notably , dog skulls , teeth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An adult dog with the same head size as an adult wolf has a 20% smaller brain , says Ray Coppinger , a professor of biology at Hampshire College in Amherst , Massachusetts , who has spent years studying dog evolution and behavior . And an adult dog of the same weight as an adult wolf has a 20% smaller head . Also , some physical traits that do not appear in wolves are common in dogs , including a sickle-shaped tail , floppy ears , and piebald color patterns . <p> Dogs and wolves differ in their behavior as well . For example , female dogs usually come into heat twice yearly , but wolves only once . Moreover , many adult dogs beg for food , a behavior typical of wolf puppies but not of adults . Dogs greet and lick their human masters the way wolf pups do their elders . <p> Some of the physical traits characteristic of certain dog breeds , such as floppy ears and rounded profiles , do appear in wolves , but only as pups . This appearance of youthful wolf traits in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immature . <p> A hunter trains his laborador retriever by throwing decoys that the dog is ordered to return . By modifying through artificial selection the innate behavior of the dog 's wolf ancestor , such as the urge to chase prey , humankind has produced a domestic animal of many abilities . <p> Morey suggests that retention of juvenile morphological and behavioral traits by adult dogs was due to natural , rather than artificial , selection . Presumably , dog domestication began when humans captured wolf pups and raised them as pets . In the wild , mature wolves leave the natal pack to seek mates and start their own packs , or they challenge the dominant animals in their packs and take over . Animals that did this to human masters would likely be killed , giving them little opportunity to contribute to the gene pool of the domestic dog . <p> The wolves that survived in the human environment and gave rise to dogs probably were individuals that preserved into adulthood the submission that wolf pups demonstrate toward adult wolves . This selection for submission presumably led to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that successfully adapted to life in the shadow of humankind . " The consistent appearance of these traits in dogs living within so many different human cultures suggests that selection pressures broader than cultural ones brought about the changes , " Morey says . <p> Coppinger suspects that the genetic changes that allowed behavioral adaptation to the human environment led as well to the morphological changes characteristic of dogs , because some physical and behavioral changes may be genetically linked . Wayne agrees . " A lot of characters are linked genetically , " he says . " One change can affect various characteristics . Some things , like skull length , are controlled by many genes . If you change one gene or group of genes , that can affect several characteristics . " Whether the theory holds true for dog behavior and morphology remains to be proved , Wayne adds . <p> One experiment conducted in Russia in the 1960s and 1970s supports Coppinger 's ideas about a link between morphological and behavioral changes . D. K. Belyaev deliberately bred silver foxes , a subspecies of the red fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute of Cytology and Genetics , was seeking to develop animals suitable for fur ranching . <p> Belyaev observed that female silver foxes that were less aggressive than average and that lacked a fear of humans-necessary traits for tameness-also came into estrus and bore young independent of seasons . " The reorganization of the genetic basis of reproduction ... might have evolved through selection for certain behavioral responses , which may be especially characteristic of the early stages of domestication , " Belyaev wrote in the journal Genetics and Physiology in 1977 . <p> More telling still in terms of a genetic linkage between behavioral and morphological traits is the fact that , during 20 generations of selective breeding for tameness , Belyaev 's foxes developed morphological traits familiar among domestic dogs but not found in wild canids : hooked tails , drooping ears , twice-a-year breeding , and , in some cases , black-and-white piebald coats . The question of where <p> The subject of dog evolution is rich with unanswered questions , a garden of inquiry for the evolutionary biologist . In addition to determining which wild species yielded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out on his genetic studies , had hoped that his research would help to locate the area of the globe in which dogs first appeared . But when he tried to link dog gene sequences to those of living wolf populations , he failed . He could not even determine whether dogs sprang from wolves once or several times . <p> One expert contends that no single point of origin exists . Stanley Olsen , a retired anthropologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson and author of the 1985 book Origins of the Domestic Dog , says that fossil evidence from hundreds of human archeological sites in Europe , the Near East , and Asia suggests that dogs evolved from different wolf populations in different places at different times . Olsen believes that large dogs may have derived from the large wolves of northern Europe , whereas small ones came from Asian and Near Eastern wolves . <p> Yet another study further complicates the issue by proposing three separate dog lineages . Ben Koop , a biologist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia , has been researching the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . The ancestors of these animals crossed the dry Bering Strait with humans during the most recent Ice Age . <p> Using phylogenetic analysis on museum specimens of these Native American dogs , Koop com-pared the specimens ' mitochondrial gene sequences with those of museum-specimen and living wolves , coyotes , and foxes and of living domestic dogs . He found that gene sequences from the Native American dogs grouped together . The Native American dogs were more closely related to wolves than to domestic dogs , possibly because wolves and Native American dogs interbred occasionally . <p> Similarly , Koop found that all domestic dog breeds form a single group distinct from that of Native American dogs . That suggests , he says , that domestic dogs have a single , rather than multiple , origin , but arose apart from Native American dogs . But Koop also found an exception-the Arctic elkhound apparently evolved separately from all other dog breeds . It is the only breed known to have done so . <p> Koop 's research , by suggesting three dog lineages , so complicates theories about dog origin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , " I 'm confused . It 's new data that provides a new perspective , but it clouds the issue . You have to remember we have preliminary results based on what DNA we can get out of old museum hides . The material we had was pretty beat up . " <p> Wayne 's studies suggest that the dog 's complicated evolutionary history has yielded an animal of great genetic diversity . Even recognized dog breeds show remarkable genetic variation . Part of this diversity , Wayne thinks , stems from intermittent breeding that occurred between dogs and wolves even after domestication , providing raw material for artificial selection under human control and giving the dog great evolutionary plasticity . <p> The role that backcrossing with wolves played in the dog 's genetic vigor may serve as a model for artificial selection , Wayne 's work suggests . Domestic plants and animals whose feral forebears are now extinct can not avail themselves of genetic enrichment from wild populations , presumably putting a limit on how much they can be modified by artificial selection in the future . " Consequently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article , " the preservation of wild progenitors may be a critical issue in the continued evolution of domestic plants and animals . " <p> ILLUSTRATIONS <p> By Jeffrey Cohn <p> <p> Jeffrey Cohn , a Maryland science writer , is a frequent contributor to BioScience . <p> 
##4000055 Section : Features Can genetics research help us to develop a picture of extinct creatures that left no fossils ? <p> One of the great conundrums of evolution concerns an event known as the Cambrian Explosion , an outburst of evolutionary productivity that , in about 20 million years , gave rise to all modern animal phyla some 550 million years ago . This event firmly roots all living creatures not only in that ancient time , but also in the darkness of a scientific mystery . All known Pre-Cambrian animal fossils-which admittedly are few in number-are of creatures of such simplicity that investigators from paleontologists to evolutionary biologists do not understand how they could have given rise to the more complex phyla of the Cambrian . Most of these species probably existed at the organizational level of modern jellyfish , in which fewer than a dozen specialized cell types form a conglomerate that functions as a single organism . More advanced animals , such as mammals , are composed of as many as 200 different cell types and many distinct tissues . <p> The fact that Pre-Cambrian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Cambrian Explosion suggests that more complex animals occurred in the Pre-Cambrian than the fossil record indicates . Some indirect evidence supports this possibility , including fossilized burrows and grooves in Pre-Cambrian ocean substrates that resemble the tracks of crawling worms . <p> What these more complex creatures were may never be known , but new evidence from developmental biology , based on the study of genes that play pivotal roles in early development in a wide spectrum of animal species , is providing some clues . " It 's doing paleontology without fossils , " says Sean Carroll , a molecular biologist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the University of Wisconsin-Madison . " We 're drawing a picture of something no one has ever seen . " <p> Carroll and his colleagues are using the techniques of molecular biology to chart a time crucial to the history of life . In a sense , the team is practicing genetic paleontology , sifting through the genetic machinery of modern phyla to find genes that offer clues about what certain unknown extinct creatures were like in a fossil-poor past . @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their work on the genes that control the development of appendages has provided a new perspective on the common ancestor of modern living things , the nadir of the Cambrian explosion . A Pre-Cambrian survivor <p> The gene on which Carroll and his team have focused is called Distal-less , or Dll . This gene directs cells to create organs that bud off from a main body axis , including such appendages as legs and antennae . For example , developmental biologists have long known that Dll controls the development of the distal portion of insect limbs , that is , the portion farthest from the body . The gene encodes a homeodomain protein , one of a family of transcription factors that , among other functions , act to define body axes in vertebrates and invertebrates . The Dll protein in turn activates other genes that govern limb formation . However , the pathway by which Dll controls downstream genes remains unknown , says Jennifer Grenier , a researcher in Carroll 's lab . <p> Dll itself is turned on by the two genetic pathways that control formation of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's expression also is governed by homeotic proteins . For example , in Drosophila , Dll expression for legs and wings occurs in the thoracic limb-forming disks , but expression in the abdomen is repressed by homeotic proteins . As a result , these segments lack appendages . <p> Scientists have known for a long time about the role of Dll in insect limbs . However , Carroll and his colleagues discovered only two years ago that the gene occurs broadly in other animals , initiating the development of appendages in crustaceans , as Carroll 's team reported in the 24 November 1995 Science . Now , as described in the 13 May 1997 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , Carroll and his team have shown that Dll is more pervasive within the animal kingdom than anyone has previously suggested . This finding yields new understanding about the origin of appendages and about the Pre-Cambrian precursor to modern phyla . Excavating a gene <p> To test for the activity of the Dll gene and its orthologs , collectively known as Dlx , the research team used Dll homeodomain antibody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is broadly reactive across phyla . The researchers found Dll expression in the distal portion of the developing antennae and lobopods-primitive locomotory appendages-of the onychophoran species Peripa-topsis capensis and in the antennae and the distal portions of all developing parapodia-short processes on the segments of some annelids-in the polychaete Chaetopterus vario-pedatus . The gene also is expressed in the footlike ampullae of larval ascidians , in the siphons of adult ascidians , and in the spines and larval tube feet of sea urchins , which are echinoderms . <p> The team found Dll or its orthologs expressed in all six phyla that they tested , Carroll says , including three deuterostome phyla-chordates , enchinoderms , and urochordates-and three protostome phyla-arthropods , onycho-phora , and annelids . Because deuterostomes and proto-stomes differ fundamentally in the way in which their eggs undergo cleavage , they probably took separate evolutionary pathways hundreds of millions of years ago , suggesting only the most tenuous relationship between the two groups . This discovery raises the question of why such distantly related animals would use the same genetic mechanism for producing such divergent outgrowths . <p> These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the formation of appendages , suggesting an ancestral link among them that dates to the Pre-Cambrian era . Clockwise from top , an onychophoran , a polychaete , an ascidian , and an echinoderm . <p> The researchers offer two answers to this question : Either each phylum independently coopted Dll genes for appendage formation from some other function , or Dll expression along the proximodistal axes arose only once , long ago , in some unknown creature that was the common ancestor of all modern phyla . Carroll and his colleagues lean toward the second explanation because , by requiring only one adoption of Dll to appendage formation , it is the more parsimonious explanation . <p> In taking this view , the researchers are suggesting a major change in the interpretation of appendage origin . Prior to the development of modern molecular biology , comparative anatomy was the primary means for investigating such elements of evolution as the origin of appendages . These traditional studies-which , for example , compared the anatomy of a vertebrate 's leg with that of an insect 's leg-long ago led to a consensus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independently of one another . For example , a bird 's foot might be homologous to that of a dinosaur , but no one would suggest that a bird 's foot is a homologue of a spider 's leg . <p> And yet , Carroll 's studies indicate a direct genetic link between a spider 's leg and a bird 's , or a human 's . The Dll expression patterns suggest that the fundamental genetic mechanism for appendages arose once in an ancestor common to all six phyla . The fact that Dll is common to all six phyla that Carroll and his colleagues studied also suggests that the mechanism arose a long time ago . " This stuff , " says Carroll , " was in place by the Cambrian Explosion . " And that being so , then perhaps the unknown common Pre-Cambrian ancestor of modern phyla was not the simple , perhaps tubular , but definitely featureless creature that scientists have long speculated that it was . Perhaps , instead , it had appendages after all . <p> In the Proceedings article , Carroll and his colleagues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organ or simple locomotory appendages . This may have given it a tremendous advantage over limbless competitors hunting limbless prey . If so , appendages-and the Dll gene-may have been the foundation of an evolutionary arms race that led to the Cambrian Explosion . The appearance of appendages for feeding , swimming , predation , respiration , and other functions might have sped evolution along in what Carroll calls a " snowball analogy-as early life diversified , you get more roots for further diversification . " A different point of view <p> Carroll and his colleagues admit that they are making a leap in suggesting that the common , Pre-Cambrian ancestor of today 's phyla may have borne appendages . The idea that the creature might have had an outgrowth such as antennae would , as developmental biologist Brian Hall of Dalhousie University in Halifax , Nova Scotia , pointed out in the 4 July Science , " have been a total heresy 10 years ago . " But the idea now is becoming increasingly acceptable in the face of the genetic evidence . <p> But not acceptable to everyone . @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For example , Nipam Patel , a University of Chicago and Howard Hughes Medical Institute biologist who studies the genetics of limb formation , says that even if the gene occurred in a Pre-Cambrian common ancestor , " What the gene was used for is still hard to decipher . " The application of a gene can vary from organism to organism , he points out . <p> For example , in the protochordate amphioxus , Dll is expressed in the epidermis and the central nervous system . However , in vertebrates-whose five or six Dll homologues probably orginated from an ancestral gene that resembled the Dll of amphioxus-the gene is expressed in the mesoderm , although it is not expressed there in amphioxus . So , although it may occur across six phyla , Patel says , " we still do n't know what Distal-less does in these different organisms . " And , he says , we certainly can not know how the gene functioned in a long-extinct species . <p> The dark-rimmed oval at the top of this photograph of a mouse embryo is a limb bud . @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also plays a role in limb formation in a wide range of other phyla , as revealed by recent research at the University of Wisconsin and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute . <p> On a note of caution , Carroll 's team suggests in the Proceedings report that one explanation for the variety of Dll expressions may be that the gene pre-dates the appendage-bearing common ancestor and that the gene initially may have been expressed in the central nervous system before a genetic shift caused it to become involved in appendage formation . " This suggests , " the team writes , " that genetic components required for the genetic machinery for appendage formation evolved long before these structures arose . " The gene was then , they suggest , coopted for limb development sometime in the Pre-Cambrian and has been fulfilling that role ever since . <p> Carroll accepts that although his research provides rich food for thought and speculation , in the end how Dll was expressed in the Pre-Cambrian ancestor of modern phyla will remain unknown until fossil evidence appears . The wait for the fossil may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fossilization among Pre-Cambrian animals , the role of Dll in that lost era may remain forever shrouded in mystery . <p> By Roger L. DiSilvestro <p> 
##4000453 Section : EDUCATION POLICY <p> There is no question that the cost of a college degree is increasing rapidly . An oft-cited 1996 study by the General Accounting Office found that tuition and fees at public institutions have increased some 234 percent since 1980 while family income and the general inflation rate have increased only about 80 percent over the same period . Costs at private colleges and universities have fared little better , increasing more than 220 percent . <p> Many reasons have been given for the increasing costs of higher edition . Some of the most persuasive include the increased demand for college degrees , higher overhead costs associated with increased faculty research , recent reductions in state support of public institutions , and federal student aid programs that indirectly subsidize schools . These all are important factors that increase costs ; however , there is another reason not often mentioned . Colleges and universities , particularly elite private universities , exercise a certain degree of monopoly power that allows them to charge each individual student a higher price than would be the case otherwise . @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs . However , the emphasis is placed on the last one , the monopolistic power of schools . The Reasons for Increasing Costs <p> Increased value of a college degree . The most important reason college costs have escalated is that the value of a college education has increased . In fact , according to the General Accounting Office the average college graduate earned about 43 percent more than the average high school graduate did in 1980 . Today , the difference in earnings between these same two groups is more than 70 percent . Therefore , more and more families are finding it necessary to send their children to college so they will have a better opportunity to succeed in the job market . At the same time , the college age population in general has increased . This increased demand for higher education has driven up the price of college just as increased demand for any commodity drives up the price if that demand is not met with a sufficiently increased supply . <p> Increased research at universities . Another factor affecting tuition costs at many colleges and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a college or university today is largely a function of the publishing prowess of the institution 's professors . Publishing requires research , which requires time . This means that professors are doing less teaching and more research . Fewer hours at the lectern for each professor means either that course and class selection are reduced , which forces students to take longer to finish a degree , or that more professors are required on staff , which forces the institution to spend more for salaries . Charles Sykes made this point in his excellent 1988 book , Profscam . Either way , the result is higher fixed or overhead costs , which typically are passed on to students and parents through higher tuition and fees . <p> Reduced state funding for public institutions . In addition , the current era of fiscal austerity in government has meant slower growth in state budgets , which often has meant slower growth in financial support of public universities . According to Department of Education statistics , state government funds accounted for 46.3 percent of public institution revenues in 1980 . By 1993 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been the only recourse for public institutions simultaneously faced with increased demand and shrinking state support . <p> Federal programs that facilitate family debt . Federal programs meant to assist students facing steep college costs have themselves added to the rise in tuition . Starting with passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965 , the federal government has guaranteed student loans extended by private banks . The Student Loan Marketing Association ( Sallie Mae ) was established in 1972 as a government-sponsored enterprise to establish a secondary market in student loans . In addition , a limited direct government loan program was established in 1993 . These loan programs not only facilitate indebtedness , but also boost the scale of that indebtedness by encouraging steeper tuition increases . As Thomas Donlan recently wrote in Barron 's magazine , " The faculty and staff Can vote themselves higher salaries and more resources if the only consequence is that students and parents just have to sign on the dotted line to borrow some more money . " With federal debt assistance so readily available , schools have no incentive to control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Increased demand , increased research , and reduced state funding all affect the " sticker " price of a college degree -- the advertised tuition that a school charges . However , federal programs ( and to a lesser extent private scholarships and institutional aid ) that subsidize students directly affect not only the sticker price of college but also the actual price paid by a student and his family . Most students and their families do not pay the full sticker price just as few people pay the full sticker price for a new automobile . In fact , thanks to subsidized loans , institutional scholarships , state subsidies , and federal grants , schools can usually get away with charging each student a different price . Thus , the same education typically costs every student a different amount . <p> The ability to charge different students different prices is known in economic terms as price discrimination . Only firms with monopolistic power are able to engage in price discrimination . The result of price discrimination is that colleges are able to charge each student exactly as much as he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem fair and financial aid is often touted as " leveling the playing field , " the fact is that price discrimination rarely benefits any consumers , even those with low incomes . To understand this it is important first to understand the basis of every economic transaction that takes place in the marketplace . <p> Everyone who takes part in any economic transaction does so because he believes he will be better off after the deal than before . Why otherwise should he engage in the trade ? For example , if you , the student , decide to purchase a semester of classes at a particular school for $10,000 then you have made a decision that at present that semester of classes is worth more to you than holding on to the $10,000 . If this were not the case then you would be better off holding on to the cash or making another purchase . The extra value you receive from that transaction -- above and beyond the $10,000 paid -- is known as your consumer surplus . <p> The university is making exactly the same calculation on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transpires then the school has obviously decided that the $10,000 in cash is more valuable than not spending the time and resources to offer the classes . The excess value on this side of the ledger is known in economic terms as producer surplus . This example helps illustrate that a transaction will transpire only when both the purchaser and the seller receive some surplus value from the deal and conversely , an economic transaction will always occur if there is a surplus to be gained by both the consumer and the producer . <p> Of course , the actual amount of surplus enjoyed by the consumer or producer is difficult if not impossible to measure in most individual market transactions . However , it generally is true that a consumer will receive a greater surplus in a competitive market ( one served by many producers ) , than in a monopolistic market ( one served by a small number of producers ) and a producer will enjoy a larger surplus in a monopolistic market . This is because in a competitive market the consumer can switch from one producer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is receiving . Competition among producers lowers prices and thus increases consumer surplus at the expense of producer surplus . Firms that have monopolistic power , however , need not compete with other producers as much and are able to retain a larger surplus for themselves . In short , monopolistic producers have the luxury of determining exactly how much an individual will pay for their services and charging precisely that amount . Consumers have little choice but to pay the monopolist 's price . <p> What , then , is the lesson for higher education ? Colleges and universities have greater monopolistic power today than ever before . This fact came to the forefront in 1991 when a group of Ivy League schools were investigated by the Department of Justice for collusion in setting their tuition prices . In short , these schools agreed that they would no longer offer merit-based scholarships and would offer financial aid on the basis of need only . Thus , the schools involved agreed to end economic competition for talented students . The Department of Justice broke up the Ivy League cartel . @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise of monopolistic power by schools of higher learning . <p> In fact , the power of the monopoly has spread beyond a small number of elite institutions and has been widely adopted by more ordinary colleges and universities . In part , this expansion is attributable to a failure to meet the increased demand for higher education with a commensurate increase in supply . It is difficult to build a new college or university . And so the same number of schools is serving an increasing number of students . This will eventually even out as new colleges are created and gain a reputation in the marketplace , but that will take time . <p> More directly and of greater concern is that federal student aid has enabled monopolistic practices by schools . Colleges and universities are able to increase the sticker price beyond the reach of most students and then reduce the actual price charged individual students by offering them various bundles of financial aid . Thus , each student is offered a different price that matches almost exactly what he or she is willing to pay . The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is decreased and the school 's ( producer ) surplus is increased . In the end , students will benefit less from the education because colleges and universities have captured more of their consumer surplus . This " captured consumer surplus " may be a greater percentage of the family 's income than would have been paid under competitive circumstances . Or , it may mean that the student receives a lower-value education ( from his or her perspective ) . For example , the student may have to endure larger class sizes or more graduate student led classes . <p> Additional producer surplus means that schools may engage in activities that would not be possible in a competitive market . For example , schools may be able to operate academic programs that advance a certain political agenda favored by the school 's administrators even if that agenda has been discredited in the real world . The existence of an educational monopoly may thus help explain why so many schools continue to preach the benefits of communism despite that political and economic system 's complete failure in the former Soviet Union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools offer certain administrators and tenured faculty . In a less manipulated system , competition would discourage such excesses . All of these activities benefit the school establishment at the expense of students . <p> Despite the obvious fact that more students will be worse off given the monopolistic power of universities , some believe that a system of high sticker price and redistributive financial aid is socially beneficial because it helps those students from low income families . However appealing this may sound , it is simply untrue . Remember that the nature of any monopoly ( in this case colleges and universities ) is to reduce the consumer surplus of all customers not just the wealthy . <p> This hypothesis has been borne out by the data . David C. Rose and Robert L. Sorensen , in a 1992 article in the Southern Economic Journal found " that while institutions that appear to inflate their tuition do make larger aid awards , their awards are not large enough to reduce the average net price paid by needy students . " What is more , the University of St. Louis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expended on increased administrative overhead , faculty salaries , and stipends for graduate students , rather than lower tuition costs for needy students . Again , the beneficiary of monopoly power is the school and not student . Implications and Conclusions <p> Most of the factors driving up college costs are natural market forces and , left to themselves , they will produce the most efficient and socially beneficial outcome . The increased value of a college degree that has led to increased demand for higher education eventually will be met by increased supply . When that happens we can expect to see tuition prices fall naturally . <p> Similarly , an overemphasis by universities on research will be corrected as students seek out schools focused on teaching . Those universities that have forsaken students through increased class size , increased tuition , or reduced professorial teaching will see their enrollment fall off and shift to schools that focus on the students . As this happens , research universities will either have to return to teaching ( which would reduce costs ) or lower their tuition to attract more students . @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result of taxpayer desire for greater fiscal restraint . Depending on one 's view this may or may not be a problem . In either case the issues involved are too great to be covered here . It is enough to say that the residents of each state must decide for themselves their own priorities and where the cost of public higher education fits among these priorities . <p> What 's left then is federal student aid and the monopolistic power it grants to colleges and universities . Unlike the other factors affecting higher education costs , federal subsidies will not correct themselves , will not lead to an efficient and socially beneficial outcome , and -- in the end -- will hurt far more students than they will help . It is ironic that the American academy , typically the loudest voice against " capitalist excess " and an eager supporter of egalitarianism , shamelessly raises prices and otherwise profits from monopolistic practices . It should thus come as no surprise that this academic monopoly lobbies in Washington as hard or harder than anyone , because the redistributive policies of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . Everyone , that is , except the student . <p> PHOTO ( BLACK &; WHITE ) : Survey for higher education <p> By John S. Barry <p> <p> John S. Barry is an economic policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation , 214 Massachusetts Avenue , N.E. , Washington , D.C. 20002 . <p> 
##4000455 The greatest threat to academic freedom today comes from within . The barbarians are not at the gates ; they are inside the walls . As Benno Schmidt , then president of Yale University , said in a 1991 address : <p> The most serious problems of freedom of expression in our society today exist on our campuses . ... The assumption seems to be that the purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and to liberate the mind . <p> The same year , retiring Harvard president Derek Bok expressed a similar concern : <p> What universities can and must resist are deliberate , overt attempts to impose orthodoxy and suppress dissent . ... In recent years , the threat of orthodoxy has come primarily from within rather than from outside the university . <p> Since that time , others have documented the political intolerance and abuse of academic freedom on campus . The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbill University finds that over 384 colleges and universities have speech codes or sensitivity requirements that threaten academic freedom . @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campus newspaper theft -- with little or no punishment for the perpetrators . <p> The political harassment of individual professors has been documented not only in such books as Lynne V. Cheney 's Telling the Truth , Dinesh D'Souza 's Illiberal Educations , and Richard Bernstein 's The Dictatorship of Virtue , but by the federal courts as well . Faculty members , even such tenured professors as Donald Silva at the University of New Hampshire , Michael Levin at the City University of New York , Graydon Snyder at the Chicago Theological Seminary , and Dean Cohen and Joseph Conlin in California , have been removed and punished , in some cases illegally , for violating the norms of political correctness . The decisions in Cohen . v. San Bernardino Valley College ( 1996 ) , Jeffries v. Harleston ( 1992 ) , and Silva v. University of New Hampshire ( 1994 ) are particularly telling in this regard . <p> That the primary threat to academic freedom would be internal is an extraordinary development . It does not seem to have been anticipated by anyone . The classic statements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nor is that surprising . Systematic threats to academic freedom have always been external . When the American Association of University Professors was founded , the primary threat was religious orthodoxy imposed by church hierarchies . The McCarthy era reinforced the idea that universities needed very high legal and institutional walls to shield them from severe outside pressure . The recent historical study Zealotry and Academic Freedom by Neil Hamilton , examines a number of critical periods when academic freedom was threatened . Only the current threat -- known popularly as " political correctness " -- has been internal . <p> Current rules protect academic freedom about as well as the Maginot Line protected the French . They were developed with a single-minded focus on possible external threats to academic freedom . The external marauder approaches Fortress Academe with risk . Built on the high ground of educational ideals , surrounded by the moat of " institutional autonomy , " its walls are buttressed by Tenure , Faculty Prerogatives , and Union Contracts . Like slings and arrows , charges of McCarthyism and yahooism shower down upon the reckless intruder . @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What happens when the intellectual freedom of politically unfashionable colleagues or students is threatened by other professors , whose outrageous behavior is itself protected by tenure and " departmental autonomy " ? <p> It is important to understand how dramatically the situation has changed . Academic decisions have always been subject to faculty politics , tyrannical senior professors , and departmental cliques . No matter how hard they try to be fair , professors are only human . Their own political , intellectual , and personal tastes sometimes influence their judgment . Traditionally , professors at least believed it their duty to be fair , to set aside personal and partisan bias , and to judge colleagues ' and students ' work solely on its intellectual merit . <p> In the postmodern age , everything is stood on its head . Professors who once preached objectivity now celebrate subjectivity . The measure is not truth but power -- especially the power of one 's race , class , and gender . The aim is not to educate the young to think for themselves but to transform them into " change agents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . <p> The British philosopher Jeremy Bentham once disparaged a view by calling it " nonsense on stilts . " Postmodernism is " nonsense on stilts without the stilts . " While they were knocking the props out from under everyone else , postmodernists undermined themselves as well . For the whole defense of academic freedom rests on the pursuit of truth , on the idea that it is possible to judge ideas with some degree of objectivity , rationality , and evidence . As the AAUP 's classic 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure declares , " Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth . " John Dewey put it more bluntly . " The university function is the truth-function . " <p> The postmodern attack on truth and objectivity has cut the ground out from under academic freedom . If there is no truth but only power , why protect academic freedom ? If everything is political , why should academic decisions be made by faculty rather than politicians ? <p> In fact , postmodernists are aware of these implications . In her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Study , Betty Jean Craige argues : <p> The discipline -- and the academic world generally -- can not use the notion of academic independence from politics to support academic evaluation by academics after it has shown society 's intellectual activity to be inseparable from its political activity . <p> She concludes : <p> Since we can no longer contend that our scholarly activities ... imply no ideology , since we can no longer contend that the academy can operate free of political pressure , and since we can no longer believe that truth is not socially influenced , we must claim academic freedom and tenure on the relativistic grounds of social value : it is for the continued health of the country that our society should grant us , its academic intellectuals , the freedom to seek understanding of the world , to publish the results of our research , and to teach what we know to our students . <p> Similarly , in his contribution to The Future of Academic Freedom , Richard Rorty rejects the idea of grounding academic freedom in the pursuit of truth or any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some complicated local folkways " that " insulate colleges and universities from politics and public opinion . " Such folkways should be judged , not on whether they are founded on sound principles , but " by the good they seem to be doing . " We should stop giving " epistemological " defenses for such practices but instead give " sociopolitical justifications . " Unfortunately , Rorty seems completely insensitive to the dangers inherent in changing the mission of the university from the epistemological goal of truth-seeking to the sociopolitical goal of improving society . The repression of intellectual freedom on campus today is primarily in pursuit of sociopolitical goals . <p> But this is precisely what some professors want . In his article , " There Is No Such Thing as Free Speech and It 's a Good Thing Too , " Stanley Fish argues that free speech is " not an independent value but a political prize . " If free speech principles are being used by your political opponents , you should " contest their relevance to the issue at hand ; but , if you manage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them with a vengeance . " When someone argues against speech codes , says Fish , " the only question is the political one of which speech is going to be chilled . " ( Italics in the original . ) <p> On this view , Fish and his allies can punish dissenting faculty and students at will . If anyone off campus objects , however , they will accuse the outsiders of violating academic freedom . Fish 's view not only destroys academic freedom on campus , it undermines any reason for the rest of society to respect academic freedom and institutional autonomy . If everything is political , then , in a democracy , are n't legislators surely more qualified than English professors to run a university ? <p> The internal threat to academic freedom presents us with two pressing tasks -- one practical and one at the level of principle . At the practical level , we must find a way to defend those professors , as well as students , whose academic freedom is threatened by other professors who disagree with their views . Current notions not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oppressors by shielding them from review . When the threat to academic freedom is internal , alumni and other friends of the university must rise in its defense . Slogans such as institutional autonomy that derive their legitimacy from the unpoliticized search for truth can not be allowed to provide a cloak for undermining academic freedom . Faculty and admistrators show little or no concern about the epidemic of campus newspaper thefts , often declining even to denounce it . On such matters of policy , alumni should vigorously enter the debate on the side of intellectual freedom . <p> The role of trustees is especially important in this regard . Trustees set policy . They have a fiduciary obligation for the academic , as well as financial , well-being of their institutions . When they fail to protect academic freedom , trustees are defaulting on their most important duty . In the past , trustees could do their duty simply by not interfering . Occasionally , they had to stand up against external threats . <p> Today , the role of trustee is more difficult and , arguably , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the campus maintains a genuinely open intellectual environment when faculty and administrators fail to do so . Campus newspapers should be protected . Speakers should not be disinvited . Tenure decisions contaminated by intellectual intolerance should be reviewed and , if necessary , reconsidered . Policies should be adopted to encourage intellectual openness in departments and other campus units . <p> In the long run , we may need to reconceptualize the rules protecting academic freedom . The Maginot Line doctrine was simple : Draw a line between internal and external and defend it . This is a jurisdictional model : it does not matter what is done to the individual as long as it is done by the authorized people in the authorized way . <p> We need to explore nonjurisdictional ways to define the rights that constitute academic freedom . We do not allow a professor to be robbed , plagiarized , harassed , or discriminated against so long as it is done by his or her own department according to the procedures described in the faculty handbook . We have rules and procedures for protecting these rights from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way that is not solely dependent on the inside/outside distinction , we should be able to devise procedures to protect these rights as we have others . <p> Finally , we must rise to the philosophical challenge . We must return to our intellectual moorings . We must recapture the classic understanding of intellectual freedom . We must reaffirm the search for truth that unites us in a community of free minds . Milton and Locke , Jefferson and Mill , Lovejoy and Meiklejohn taught us well . They knew that no fanaticism , no ideology , no political passion has the right to suppress free minds in the pursuit of truth . It is a lesson we dare not forget . <p> By Jerry L. Martin and Anne D. Neal <p> <p> Jerry L. Martin is president of the National Alumni Forum and former acting chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities . Anne D. Neal is vice president and general counsel of the National Alumni Forum and former co-editor of Communications Lawyer , published by the American Bar Association . <p> 
##4000456 A university worthy of the name stands at the apex of civilization . It is a community in which rational persuasion and recourse to artistic , spiritual , and intellectual achievement takes precedence over the appeal to brute force . More than any other institution , the university exhibits the victory of persuasion over force . How ? By asserting and defending academic freedom for every member and student . Academic freedom is both a description of the ideal way of life within a university community , and a basic right claimed by all members of that community . Academic freedom helps liberate the community of scholars from domination by unqualified but powerful members of society ( or , more often these days , from other members of the academic community itself ) . It is recognized by its essential , civilized attributes : self-restraint ; respect for freedom , independence , and difference ; and delight in the high , difficult , and subtle search for truth and the art of rational inquiry and persuasion . <p> All members of the academic community are entitled to exercise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required to respect and support the conditions on which the exercise of academic freedom depends , and to respect and defend the academic freedom of others . <p> Students , no less than faculty members , have a right to academic freedom . Good students want the right to invite a provocative public figure to their campus . They want to hear all points of view and to argue with those who present them . They want to attend lectures by professors free to express their own views and not merely the safer views of others . They want the university to extend the full rights of citizenship in the academic community to all students . They want the right to experiment with ideas and movements and to gain wisdom through relatively harmless undergraduate excursions into folly . In the words of Clark Kerr : " Ideas should not be made safe for students , but students should be made safe for ideas . " <p> This essential point about who belongs to the academic community , and therefore who has a right to academic freedom , is often misunderstood . @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has led to confusion of the role and function of academic freedom with that of tenure . Where tenure functions properly , as a rising expectation of continuity or permanence ( rather than in a corrupted form , as sinecure ) , it has protected academic freedom . But tenure is clearly not necessary to its existence . How could tenure , held only by some , be the basic weapon in the defense of a right claimed by all members of the academic community ? Students and nontenured faculty have a right to academic freedom and must exercise that right to be worthy of their responsibilities . The best nontenured faculty members assume the risks of speaking their minds to the best of their knowledge and competence quite without the protection of tenure . <p> But tenure , even when elevated to the status of sinecure , fails to guarantee the exercise of academic freedom . Some professors with virtual sinecures are more concerned with salary advances or with administrative appointments or merely with the approbation of colleagues than with the faithful exercise of their academic duties . <p> Academic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courage is present , academic freedom will be exercised with or without tenure ; where courage is absent , the sound and vigorous exercise of academic freedom is impossible . And when tenure becomes virtually a sinecure , it encourages irresponsibility -- not academic freedom , but academic license . Thus , tenure may inhibit or corrupt , as well as enhance , the realization of academic freedom even by tenured faculty . <p> Tenure has , of course , been moderately useful in protecting established scholars in their intellectual deviance from the conformists of their discipline . But limiting the vigorous defense of academic freedom to the ranks of the tenured faculty has unfortunately left the nontenured faculty exposed . Infringement by tenured professors of the rights of the nontenured to develop their intellectual interests according to their own professional judgment -- that is , the censuring of the nontenured faculty from the standpoint of doctrinal orthodoxy as defined by the senior professors of a department-represents by far the most serious and most frequent violation of academic freedom in our colleges and universities . <p> Any professor can cite numerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , departments dominated by logical positivists and linguistic analysts have frequently denied appointment or promotion to young philosophers with primarily historical or metaphysical interests , no matter how able . In psychology , experimentally oriented departments have frequently refused appointment or promotion to clinical psychologists ; clinically oriented departments have denied appointment to experimentalists ; and departments dominated by behaviorists have sometimes gotten rid of experimentalists and clinicians who would not accept the reductionist formulas of behaviorism . Political science departments have frequently been captured by Marxists or Straussians who attempt to impose an orthodoxy on the members of their departments . And English departments all too frequently reject creative writers -- novelists , poets , playwrights -- who do not produce the usual critical cliches for the usual scholarly journals . <p> Lately a new test has been imposed in many departments : submission to the intellectual orthodoxies that go broadly by the name of " deconstructionism . " Even so profoundly gifted a literary critic as Christopher Ricks may find himself ostracized by colleagues in the English department if he proves a heretic in this regard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a description of the demands sometimes made by senior professors of their younger colleagues . Too often the senior professors demand nothing less than conformity or deference to their own prejudices . Anything so exciting or dignified as the resistance of Newtonian physicists to the disturbing implications for Newtonian theory of the Michelson-Morley experiment is rarely involved . Rather , I have in mind the all-too-common decision by senior professors to remove an able young person whose outstanding teaching and scholarly promise expose their own deficiencies . Resentment is not merely an academic vice , but the academic vice . <p> If we recognize that the guild masters impose doctrinal orthodoxy , and that senior professors demand deference from their juniors , we must then recognize that these are genuine infringements of academic freedom , and that academic freedom is severely restricted for all but the most courageous or naturally conformist of the nontenured faculty . The American Association of University Professors has never defended academic freedom from this common and more subtle coercion practiced by academics themselves or even recognized that such coercion , though a common occurrence , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nevertheless , a place for doctrinal bias . A school of theology , for example , has every right to restrict faculty appointments to believers . But if a department or college exercises the right to a doctrinal bias in the pursuit of its educational goals , it should openly admit the restrictions it places on academic freedom and inform faculty members and the general public of these limitations at the time of their appointment . <p> How are nontenured faculty -- the younger faculty with minimal claims to tenure -- to be protected from intellectual censorship ? I acknowledge the difficulties inherent in the problem . It seems clear , nevertheless , that some review procedure , ensuring that assessments include responsible but non-mainstream points of view , is essential in protecting younger faculty from the doctrinal censorship of their own colleagues . In such reviews , administrators have an essential role to play . A vigorous dean can often prevent the dismissal of an able young scholar , simply by insisting that members of his department justify their decision . By appealing to the national and international community of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scholars and critics outside the department and the university itself and by presenting student evaluations of his or her teaching , the dean can see that academic justice is done . The dean in possession of such evidence is in a position to accept the recommendation of the department , to persuade the department to change its decision , or to be justified in overruling it . <p> Because of the central role of the faculty in establishing the quality of an institution , it is the highest obligation of the administration to minimize mistakes in granting or denying tenure . Mistakes in either direction impose serious losses on students . <p> On the other hand , there is no reason to defend the intellectual novelty of individuals who can not present deviant ideas in a way that is reasonably convincing to fair-minded and competent critics . But in the appointment of faculty , we can rarely expect to be absolutely certain of the soundness of any decision , for the recognition of talent is an aleatory science . <p> What conclusion should we draw from this ? We must recognize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loyal and effective service . We must also recognize the institutional need to remain solvent , innovative , and educationally effective . Administrators and faculties must develop a tenure policy and procedures that serve these essential needs . If the AAUP wishes ever again to play a relevant role in academic life , it will have to recognize the folly of its misadventure with trade unionism and reestablish the morally authoritative , almost judicial , position once held . Failing this , it can play no part . <p> The turmoil of the late 1960s and early 1970s made it clear that the chief threat to universities is not from outside assaults on academic freedom . Today , there is virtually no interference or restriction on the actions or opinions of professors by politicians , boards of trustees , or influential business leaders . <p> Sadly , it is now more likely that attempts to suppress the academic freedom of a professor or a visiting speaker will come from within the campus . Led by those who have been called " tenured radicals , " many universities adopt repressive speech codes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students and faculty on such campuses disrupt speakers whose views they oppose , they do so without risk of being disciplined . Only in dealing with conservatively oriented student publications do such administrations take action , and then only to suppress , rather than defend , freedom of thought and expression . <p> The major threat to academic freedom today is from its misuse by professors and students who engage in what can only be accurately described as academic license . When the exercise of academic freedom degenerates into academic license through a professor 's , or a student 's , disregard for the rational procedures essential to the search for truth , which is the work of the scholar , academic freedom is lost and the integrity of the university is compromised . The price of academic freedom , therefore , is eternal vigilance . <p> By John Silber <p> <p> John Silber is chancellor of Boston University in Massachusetts . <p> 