[Disclaimer: I was hesitant to put this thread in the Pit, because I would like for people who truly believe in the "flagship system" to explain how it is helping the state. But, because of the lsu content, and a desire to not have to hear JAB whine about another lsu thread, I put it in the pit.]

So, how is it that the "flagship system" that Louisiana has married itself to is helping the state? I would argue that it is outdated, inefficient, an example of gross cronyism, and is actually holding higher education in Louisiana back.

For about 80 years LSU has received the lion's share of state resources for higher education and has enjoyed special protection from the legislature to keep other state programs from competing with its programs in any way. In athletics LSU was propped up by a corrupt exploitation of loopholes in state and Federal law to catapult the Tigers to the top of the heap in the state. (And then, once all that special favor turned into success on the field and revenues, they arrogantly rewrote the rules so that other schools would be limited in the amount of institutional support they can receive for athletics, while hypocritically boasting that LSU athletics is now "self-supporting." Even recently, however, state funds have been used for such narrow-interest projects as building a new habitat for the school's mascot, while Tech's mascots are dying of heat stroke without even a shelter for game day.)

On the academic side, LSU has received extra funding, but more importantly, special protection for its programs. When another state school wants to introduce a new doctoral program, for example, even when a clear regional need for the program can be demonstrated, that school cannot offer the degree if LSU offers a similar degree. When a program is introduced that LSU does not offer, the Board of Regents essentially gives LSU right of first refusal to offer the program itself (though this is done unofficially, not officially).

The biggest problem I see with LSU's special treatment, aside from the fact that it holds back other schools in the state (and I have an obvious bias to want to see Tech excel without having to defer to a school 5 hours away), is that Louisiana arguably has NOTHING to show for it. Despite 80 years of legislative and gubernatorial protection, LSU has not been able to produce a single nationally-prominent doctoral program. Furthermore, LSU languishes in the bottom half of all national universities (based on US News' rankings--obviously all rankings are open to criticism, but this is one that many potential students and potential business partners weigh heavily).

Meanwhile, the state continues to languish in the bottom 2-3 states in almost every measure of economic and educational development.

Meanwhile, other deep-south states have abandoned or modified their flagship systems, and the states are benefitting from this. For example, Alabama, while allowing UA to continue to refer to themselves as the "flagship" school, has opened up a more competitive environment, and now has two universities with decent national reputations. More importantly, they have developed their higher education around their economic bases, with UA anchoring the northern part of the state, Auburn the middle, and USA rising in the south. And both Auburn and UA are ranked in US News' top 100.

Georgia has organized their competition around areas of expertise, with UGA serving as the nominal flagship and emphasizing non-technological academic areas and Ga Tech obviously serving engineering and other hi-tech fields. The system is further broken down with each region served by a hierarchy of doctoral, masters, 4-year, and 2-year schools, each offering programs relevant to that region's economic center. Both Georgia and Georgia Tech are ranked in the top 60 on the US News list.

Similarly, in South Carolina, both the "flagship" and an "engineering school" (USC and Clemson) are ranked in the top half of the US News list. Texas has both UT and aTm ranked in the top 62.

Of these, probably the Alabama and South Carolina comparisons are most relevant, as both states are similar in size and nearly identical in population. Both states have scrapped or greatly modified their "flagship" systems, and have arguably excelled as a result.