I saw an article about a new trend in education philanthropy. Some donors, corporate and individual, are no longer satisfied with a school or building being named after them. They now want the university to agree to teach specific courses with specific content and objectives. Some examples: - An advertising agency designed the curriculum for the university, sends it's own executives once a week to teach courses, and then hires the best graduates. - A manufacturer of dental products contributed a large sum to a dental school with the understanding that students would be taught how to use the company's products. - An owner of a pro sports team designed a sports management program that had to be implemented by the university that accepted his gift. All of these universities were state schools. Proponents say that state funding is inadequate and this is the only way to offer the programs students want and need. And it is claimed that these corporate-designed programs are more practical and 'real world' than programs designed by academics. Opponents say that this approach hampers free thought and the innovation it engenders, and encroaches upon the traditional 'sanctity' of the pure academic environment. Some universities have flatly refused some very generous donations when such stringent conditions were attached. Is this approach enlightened philanthropy or self-serving meddling?