The advantage of this system, in the words of economists, is that there is no system. Therefore, it is difficult for countries where the central government plays an excessively important role in economic and social life to follow this unsystematic model. Why do you say that? First, there is no system because the federal government has not made a comprehensive plan for higher education. The United States is a society with a strong tradition of autonomy. Even a public university is only a state university, and there is no such thing as a state university. The first six presidents of the United States, for various reasons, all thought about establishing national universities. But all efforts were rejected by parliament. The frustration of national universities has become the institutional basis for the development of American universities. The federal government does not directly manage universities, there is no central plan for higher education, and it will not regard university faculty as government employees like France, Germany and Japan. All the people who come out to run universities are philanthropists, educators, local governments (especially state governments), non-governmental organizations, and even entrepreneurs who live on student tuition like doing business. The basic structure of higher education is established from the bottom up. Of course, the federal government is not idle, and its intervention method is generally to hand over public resources to these grassroots educational institutions for operation. According to MorrillLandGrantAct of 1862, the federal government allocates land to the states according to the number of deputies (because deputies are allocated according to population, land can be distributed to everyone fairly). After the land is sold, the funds will be used to build universities that mainly teach agricultural and mechanical knowledge. This bill encourages states to establish various university systems, but the federal government does not participate in the management. More importantly, the federal government should give money to support universities directly to students and scholars. For example, the Veterans Act of 1946 pays all veterans who participated in World War II to go to school, so that students can use the money to decide which school to go to. As mentioned earlier, at present, the federal government allocates nearly $810.50 billion to college students, which is also aimed at students rather than schools. In addition, the federal government has a large amount of research funds. These funds are often directly applied by university professors and scholars, and they will follow after they get the money. The money is spent on which school they teach, not directly to the university. The withdrawal of the federal government from the direct management of universities has created a fierce competitive environment. Professors compete fiercely for research funds, students compete for scholarships and universities compete for donations. All-round competition has created all-round Excellence. Without the unified planning of the federal government, the form of American universities is very flexible and can meet the needs of all levels. When we talk about American universities now, they are research universities. Various institutions of higher learning in China have changed their names one after another, and "colleges" are afraid of being short of style, vying to become "universities". In fact, there are about 4000 colleges and universities in the United States. There are more than 100 research universities. Among elite universities, there are many small liberal arts colleges. There are many community colleges at the grassroots level, with a short academic system of only two years, which is equivalent to our junior college, and the tuition fees are very cheap. So that people at the bottom of society can afford it. More importantly, students from these community colleges can jump to four-year universities through some credits. Recently, many students study in community colleges for two years because four-year universities are too expensive, and then jump ship to four-year universities to get diplomas, which greatly reduces the cost of education. The university system not only helps some people climb from the bottom of society to the top of education, but also makes some universities at the bottom rise suddenly. For example, Washington University in St. Louis was originally a day school, but in recent years, it has been ranked tenth in the ranking of research universities in US News and World Report, which is higher than many Ivy League schools. Then there was new york University, which almost went bankrupt in the mid-Kloc-0/970s and had to sell its largest campus in the Bronx. But now, in the world university ranking of Shanghai Jiaotong University, it ranks 32nd, just like a famous school. Suffolk University, where I work, was originally a law school graduate. In order to provide education opportunities for the poor, I taught six or seven students in his living room. Later, it even evolved into a university. Today, Suffolk University Law School and Harvard Law School are the two largest law schools in Boston, providing the largest number of judicial talents for the local area. Suffolk University is also transforming from a day-to-day and industrial university to a four-year regular university with a doctoral program, and has begun to develop into a boarding university with student dormitories. In the school leadership, some people even have the ambition to recreate a miracle of new york University in downtown Boston. In addition, there are so-called for-profit universities, which are what we call "learning shops", which are very similar to some English schools in China. This kind of school runs a university entirely with commercial ideas, and it should be cheap and inexpensive, with small profits but quick turnover, and turn the university into a chain store. Some principals even require that the walking distance between the classroom and the students should not exceed five minutes, much like McDonald's operating principle. These universities are for those who have jobs but lack education. The largest is the University of Phoenix, with 280,000 students and 239 campuses around the world. Its founder is JohnSper-ling, an economist who was educated in Cambridge. He found that almost all regular universities are devoted to training young people aged 18~22, while ignoring the adults who have already worked. So he vowed to run a school for these people so that they can receive higher education anytime and anywhere. There are hundreds of for-profit universities in America now. Many companies have established their own brands. This pluralistic and flexible university system ensures that American higher education can provide educational services at all stages for people from all walks of life and occupations, and promotes the competition among various systems, making it impossible for any system to sit back and relax. Do research universities in your only pay attention to research and ignore undergraduates? Then the undergraduate college of arts and sciences that pays attention to teaching will attract students away. Is your college tuition too high? Then some for-profit university chain stores and online teaching will come out to "bargain". No wonder a senior manager of a basic traditional university said, "As soon as these for-profit universities open chain stores across the street, we feel threatened, and our business methods must be adjusted, otherwise our students will run away." Such competition constitutes an excellent foundation for American universities.