they use to build the menlo park laboratory is one of the telegram. he was a telegraph inventor before he became an electric inventor. my contribution is to show how the rules of a game in the 1870s encouraged individuals that understand who's trying to figure out how to make a living as an inventor, provides circumstances in which she can't act to make a great deal of money. he sold it quadruplet to western union and with that money -- he sold to western union and to hold, which is nice if you can get it. but the money he got company that builds his laboratory, which is extraordinarily import for the invitation and the united states in the world. >> host: to wear the right to your view, regulatory framework to encourage that innovation? >> guest: well, i don't think

the future. i guess i have two lessons from history. one is that regulation is inevitable and break elation to promote the kind of universal access which large numbers of people can access the relatively equal terms to communication networks worked very well and that was the case of the telephone and not the telegram. as late as 1890, the president to western union to tell anyone who would listen that if you want to send a message long-distance, use the post office. burnout for you. the telegraph is not an enemy to be a mass media for the entire population. the specialty medium for clientele. the telephone started out that way, but as a result pressure, including the very real threat of extortion and the corrupt city officials, the business strategy changes and they

embrace an extremely expansive vision called universal service, which by about 19 ascendant creates the presumption that anyone living in the big city or small town has the right to make a local telephone call at a reasonable cost. after was an extraordinary innovation with no one else at the time. so if you have regulations that promote kind of an even playing field for that access, and that can create a quarter of innovation that cannot and if it's that be down to the entire popation. i believe access to information is a basic right. but there is a second lesson. and that lesson that is in the american tradition we have a very effect to come up long-standing presumption that one communication medium should be on another. that is to say newspapers do not

control the telegraph in telegraph does not get telephone and telephone not the radio. television did not get control of the media. none of that of technological consideration. they made very wise decisions to certify communication media developed in a way to discourage a rivalry, to distinguish between, for example, providing content and the congress within which communication messages are transmitted. and that has served us well in the past and it seems to me that that is the legacy, deeply embedded in the american tradition, not something we have it today. the survey was done business with an extraordinary innovative infrastructure. we could bring to bear when we think about the issues of our

own. >> host: we've been talking with richard john and author of this book, "network nation: inventing american telecommunications" thank you, professor. >> guest: thank you very much. >> more from book tedious college series. former jonathan cole talked about tv about his book, "the great american university." this is about 20 minutes. >> host: conversations here at columbia university continued. now joining us as jonathan cole, who is the former provost of the university and currently university professor. dr. cole, what is a provost? >> guest: well, it is

different is that the universities. at columbia was mr. inside as opposed to outside. and i basically ran all the programs come all the deans, vice presidents of the various schools. i reported to me. i also had substantial control over the budget here. i was running the internal operations of the university. i was in charge of the tenure system. i heard of her 700 cases and is a great friend come a great learning experience because i promised myself i would read whatever i was able to understand and get illiberal education through doing that. so the president was concentrating a great deal on the outside of the university, particularly fundraising and publicity and legislation in congress or in the state legislature. no extraordinarily important decisions are made without his approval of course, but i was basically running the inside.

>> host: what you do not university? >> guest: i went back to my first love, teaching and doing research. trustees are kind enough to make the university professor, which means you can teach at any school the university. there's no boundaries on where you can teach at the deans of the schools and what have you. i've had an opportunity to teach in schools from journalism to architecture to law school, to the college of course in graduate school. >> host: what is your field? >> guest: i helped develop many years ago it seems like yesterday. it was really about 45 years ago, the field of sociology of science when people thought that science was produced by great minds, individuals, but didn't understand the social system that was influential in the growth of ideas and the growth of knowledge. that held me in great stead when

i became provost because it relates to this assistant accountant. >> host: we invited you on booktv to talk about your work, "the great american university". how many great american universities are there? >> guest: i would say 100 to 150 great american universities. it has to be a context of over 300 universities that offer progra and over 4000 colleges anuniversities in the united states. it is a relatively elite group of universities. it is not elitist necessarily because they actually have more fun than resources to incorporate into than people without means of students about names, but they are among the top universities in the world. >> host: how do you define a great university? >> guest: well, has to do with foundation increased in the knowledge. the reason american universities dominate 80% of the top 20, 70%

of the top 50, 60% of the top 100 by most official counselors say they is because of the research discoveries they have made. the few members of the public really understand or realize that come from universities. things like laser, the global positioning system, the cure for childhood leukemia. all these things are great discoveries being made everyday at these universities. most people think of these universities in terms of undergraduate education, which is extremely important but nonetheless not what the united states has made its reputation for. this made it from greatness that is the kind of research and quality of the research come from our faculties and great universities. people from all over the world are interested in coming and

joining these universities have students, faculty members that want to participate in what we have. it probably is the only industry where we have a favorable balance of trade in this country and is one where we still dominate, i would say, a great universities and probably will for the next 20 or 25 years. what i'm working on now is trying to rekindle an ancient debate about 100 years old about what a great university ought to look like. click save dirty or 40 years from now. and despite the fact we were at the very top of the mountain, we should really rethink the things we are doing now and try to improve upon them. >> host: three questions. number one, you called it an industry. why? >> guest: well, it is producing something. it is producing something not deplete a bowl. knowledge.

if you have it and i had it, doesn't mean their size for the world. we are trying to produce that knowledge in a way everyone in the world potentially can have it and can benefit from it. in fact, we even sell our knowledge to some extent so it's more industrial in that regard since we own the intellectual property, which comes from the discoveries made from federal research grants. we have close links to industry today, much more so than we did in the past. in short, the the great american university is no longer isolated. it's no longer cool way. it's no wonder what some people wish it was, which is the 19th century into an environment that surrounds it flows by beautiful buildings and isolates itself from the rest of the world. but really something embedded deeply in a society and is informed by the society, influenced by the society and in

turn should be influencing it. >> host: number two company said will be on top for another 20 to 25 years. >> guest: most people are worried about foreign competition in the realm of higher education, particularly from the chinese and indians phoenician countries, japan, korea. i am not as worried. first of all it's a good thing if we have more great universities and competition would do great in this for the united states. we would find more cures for diseases, cures for cancers more rapidly competing against great chinese universities. i don't see that as a bad thing. unfortunately the society still have a long way to go to put into place the value system necessary for greatness. for example, i defy anyone to tell me of a great university system that is not academic free inquiry. that is something that worked

with academic freedom but when it comes right down to it, if you argue against the state's policies committee wind up at a second highest university. it is not clear that they truly internalize and i think the best students understand when they want very much to come to the united states and to be part of the engine of innovation, which the american university yesterday. >> host: usage are not so much worried about the rise of the chinese, university, et cetera. is there a threat to american dominance? >> guest: i think the reason i'm very much concerned about the internal threats. to paraphrase from the old cartoonists paul, kelley and his famous cartoon character, poco who said we've seen the enemy and tss, i think we are the only people who can destroy our own chewable and our nations crown

and we are doing a lot to do that right now and there are great friends of mine who are great scientists and humanists who fear for the future of american universities because a lack of understanding and how they contribute of our society. for example, let's take the state of california, which is perhaps the best example of the state university system and probably the greatest from the public higher learning the world has ever known and is being strangled. its budget is being cut by 25% a year. if that continues, they will lose greatness and will not be with you attract great faculty members increased dividend. they won't be producing the kinds of discoveries that they have in the past. there will be a silicon valley associated with the university

of california or stanford. i'm much more worried about the public university systems, which now produce majority of our phd's, majority of undergraduate degrees and there aren't literally being starved to death by the state who don't realize it is much easier to maintain and sustain greatness than it is to re-create it. if they fail to sustain, they will find it extremely difficult to rebuild. >> host: what about the student loan issue? is that a threat to the fact that there's a trillion dollars out there in student loans? is that a threat to the system? >> guest: it is a mixed story. ironically the wealthiest university with the most prestigious students who come out of their experiences with the lowest in student loans. the average graduate of harvard

now i think roger is a $7000 in loans. if you go to a private university or in a public university without the endowment, you're likely to have a hundred $50,000 in loans and the whole cost structure has got to be rethought. it seems to me though the part of the next book i actually inviting at the moment. so i do name the cost in loans problem is difficult. it is particularly difficult for those enterprises with an office are loans and where the likelihood of those phones being repaid is very, very thorough. and that if he ran fortunate because the institutions are taking advantage of the availability of holograms in the wake for students who are very unlikely to be able to repay their loans. >> host: a question from the previous answer.

you're looking at how a how a university should look and 40, 50, 100 years from now. >> guest: i want to preface by saying i'm not trying to predict what it will look like because i'm not a good prognosticator i don't think social scientists are good at prognosticating what really is. but what should exist to have some ideas about. first of all, let's look at the cost structure and the quality of these universities. i would like to have one of my chapters in my book is about creating academic duties rather than its worth the lease. why can't we have universities with strains, doing de facto merges with each other's, departments, programs, to cross boundaries and borders and allow them to work together and allow students to move from one place to another, or undergraduates who would get a tremendous amount of education over the

internet and what will really do do more of in class will be problem-solving. it's an inversion of what we've seen in the last hundred years. the lectures will be all done by great lectures who will be on tape in the classroom sessions, problem solving will be done with the help of stressors inside classrooms. so there's many things we have to retain. we have to rethink the whole of message process. the best universities in the world, the ivy league institutions in some of the other state universities that are truly great are trying to maximize one type of intelligence and we can't know for people people like howard gardner and others that there's multiple types of intelligence that we bring multiple types of intelligence together that we actually get it or problem-solving, more exciting environment and quirkiness in

the system. if we get only the kinds of intelligence that lead to the best law firms in new york robust financial institutions in the country, these quick problem-solving types of intelligence, which are real, then we have dollar crosses at the best schools are the worst schools. doesn't matter. we really have to rethink what we do, how we define success in an admissions process. so what i'm saying is that there is a paradox and irony were at the top of the mountain with the best universities in the world and yet if things are so good, why do we feel so that? why do we feel we're in a state of crisis or near crisis? i think that calls for rethinking, but not disbanding of the great universities, for rethinking the way they are organized their values,

structures and the way we actually built on as we shall come even physical spaces are different 30, 40 years from what they are today. now we have the chemistry building that says chemistry on the front or in engineering building. there will be no borders site that in the future. we are going to have universities about orders come within universities in between and among universities and i think we actually will create peaks of greatness as a worthy future. >> host: is a liberal arts education important in your view? >> guest: it's tremendously important undervalued. we overestimate the value specialized in professionalization early on. i can tell you anywhere in the country and columbia college core curriculum in the way they received a liberal arts education really primarily in the first two years.

they have become analytic thinkers. we try to instill in none a sense of skepticism about what is a fact that it's not a fact, what is dished out and it's them it's been a fact and then i think whether or not you're in business eventually, whether or not you're not a sin or whether or not you're an academic definitely not very. so teaching people how to think very clearly, very well with a high level of skip this isn't about what is the fact and what is the truth of something that comes a liberal arts education and particularly with humanities as well, which are necessary for greatness and are overlooked in many universities today. >> host: we are talking with jonathan cole, former provost at columbia university and author of this book, trans five rice to providence, international role and why it must be project day.

what level of dependence or support tuesday's 150 or so great universities have on the federal government? >> guest: they have enormous dependence. if a misnomer to call private universities truly private today when 600 to 700 to 800 million come even a billion dollars of the budget comes from federal grants and contracts. the creation of the nss, national science foundation, it isn't at the national institute of health came after the second world war or acts of policy genius in my opinion have catapulted growth of these universities and we couldn't do the work, could make discoveries we make without that government influence as well as support various loan programs for students in scholarships. so one of the great brilliant

documents of the 20th century was a little book, no relation to the latter-day bush is, which was called science frontier and he basically said what we have to do is outsource the production of new knowledge and we will do that to universities and colleges. we will link education and research very closely and gave them our economy from the state and we have to give them the resources they need to fulfill their part of the compact, which is to produce new knowledge, new discoveries come to become an jinxes society and also advance the possibility for young students reaching their full potential for social mobility in this country and it was an enormous step forward, which was never achieved in europe, and

gently, not entranced, germany and never achieved elsewhere in the world. >> host: what is columbia's annual budget? what are some of the basic facts? >> guest: i've been away for a while, but it's now getting close to $4 billion a year. we have about 23,000 students. we have a faculty or student to faculty ratio about one in six or seven. it's a boutique education wife highly priced. but people don't look for is the discount rate. >> host: what is the list price? >> guest: the list price comes to $50,000 a year, which is enormous. if you come from a family without any means, you can go for free basically and that's the great story and a great part of american education.

but very few universities can afford that kind of financial aid program. we have to have the government, federal government which a hundred and 50 years ago passed during the civil war, one of the great acts of congress, which was the more lack to open up land grant colleges of the state university system to get back into the business of trying to create great k-12 institutions and the numbers of students who will come into these universities, help support and for the national welfare. it is not a matter of individual maximization. it has now become a matter for national welfare to think of education investments in education is not part of the discretionary budget of the united states, the part of the mandatory budget of the united states. i hope president obama, whether it is him in a second term or somebody else, we'll take that

to heart and begin to think of those investments is having enormous payoffs. >> host: jonathan cole come what is the downside of having the government as a partner? >> guest: they don't give autonomy. if they intrude into business and politicize the university. they try to interfere with the peer review system as an attempt to get the paths people, the money for doing research and they try to influence the curriculum of the places as well as after his sometimes that they will make to actually try to curtail publication of important research that is not politically correct in terms of the administration's point of view that global climate change should during the period of 2000 to two guys in a. so that's the great risk and

that's the great trust that has to exist between the universities and the state. and if we carry through on our side of the buyer can, you grant us enormous autonomy. it really is an extraordinary thing. i mean, giving billions of dollars over to an institution, saying we're not going to have control over you. we will let you use it as you see fit with sun definite accountability about what you actually produce, but we're not going to interfere with what you do and will not tell you what to do. that's a rare phenomenon, and to be benefited greatly from over the last 60 years. the question is whether we continue to do that in the future. >> host: this is booktv on c-span 2. we are talking with jonathan cole, former provost at columbia university and author of this book, "the great american university".

public affairs published this book. >> we want to welcome you to the governor's mansion. >> the first governor would eat gus brown and here we have a photograph of his wife and his child draft. what is interesting about b. gratz brown is the fact that his granddaughter brought the boat, good night and goodnight mad, which of course is a favorite of many school children not only here in surrey, ballad of the

united states. >> july 7 and 8 in american history tv explore the heritage of butter culture of missouri state capitol, jefferson city with the content vehicles in american history tv inside the governor's mansion. >> a bachelor governor come the story says he rode his horse up the front steps of the mansion come into the dining room and proceeded to feed his horse is out of face plate armor as part of the site were. now, the comment was that he probably should not be feeding his horse in the governor's mansion. his comment to them was, i had to feed more people miss home with less manners and my horse pass. >> here are the best-selling hardcover nonfiction book according to "the new york times." this reflects sales as of june

june 21st.