Ecology is the study of the relationship between an organism and its environment, for example beaver in aspen meadows. One underlying question is "how does it earn its living".

There is also an ecology of organizations and the question is the same: How does an organization relate to and gain sustenance from its environment?

Let's consider the ecology of state universities.

Like animals and plants, universities cope with limited resources. Some barely survive, others prosper. Unlike animals which can decimate their immediate environment and become locally extinct, state schools persist. Even if maladapted and maladroit, political inertia guarantees their survival. The question is, how well do they fulfill their mission.

Unlike colonies of prairie dogs, university leaders consider their prospects and make decisions to influence their future. They compete for funds employing various strategies in their search for dollars. Some schools teach and little else while others foster significant research. I focus here on the ecology of the latter.

First, consider tuition revenue. Schools compete for students. Instate students are subsidized while those from out-of-state usually pay more than the cost of their education.

Funds are gathered by attracting and retaining students, especially undergraduates. Students are consumers who can exit for competing schools. Most are sensitive to two factors: how well they are treated, and the quality of their diploma as perceived by employers. They seek jobs after graduation. That's why MIT can charge $30,000 per year while Michigan State University can't.

Second, schools request increases from state legislatures while competing with other interests for budgetary allocations. They are hostage to the fickle nature of politics, volatile state economies, and the differing values that transitory political leaders place on higher education.

Third, universities can appeal to wealthy outsiders for substantial gifts, usually from foundations created by alumni. But unless a school has a substantial pool of very wealthy graduates who have been courted for years, buying a Powerball ticket is equally likely to produce a windfall.

Finally, a university can focus on research grants from government or industry seeking the substantial overhead funds which accompany them. The "overhead" on these grants ranges from 40% to 100%.

This strategy is seductive, but fraught with peril. It must be most carefully managed if the mission and morale of the school are not to suffer. There is significant danger that the drive for research funds can threaten the teaching mission. It's this primary purpose that justifies state support.

There are more insidious dangers as well. Obviously, schools compete for researchers who bring in large grants. They compete by offering large salaries, lab space, graduate students, and other benefits.

And here again there are several strategies, one internal, the other external. A university can recognize and reward home grown researchers who have succeeded in their school over many years.

These are people who developed a niche which makes sense in their local environment. They've found complementary talents and have seen the advantages of their location. For example, a school in the Northern Rockies may develop a profitable niche in conservation biology.

Or an academic entrepreneur may see an opportunity, recognize the talents available, and combine seemingly disparate fields to create a new sub-specialty and become a world leader. There are many potential research areas that could build on local resources, sensible programs in their ecological context.

Alternatively, it is tempting for schools to court the academic analogues to "rock stars", folks who consistently fetch huge grants from NSF or NIH.

These researchers don't win their grants by accident. The are usually driven, highly motivated, well connected individuals. They are accustomed to being very well treated.

Grant givers don't buy restaurants, they follow chefs. If these non-indigenous but highly successful researchers don't get what they want from one school, they threaten to move to another. And move they will for their ties are not to the local community and their exit costs are low.

The overhead they deliver gives these rock star researchers great leverage in dealing with the administration. The very characteristics which permit their success--brains, guts, and ability to game the system--often lead them to use this leverage when the university pie is sliced. This outcome guarantees resentment and demoralization among indigenous faculty.

University leaders manage a delicate ecosystem. Goals conflict and tradeoffs must be made. Performance depends on character, political skills, vision, and intelligence. Leaders who follow and take their cues from rock stars rarely inspire the admiration required to build a great university.