Universities without students: think tanks have evolved with editorial pages in mind.

Ah, the ivy-covered walls of academe. Where better to find a contemplative mind and learned hand to address today's perplexing issues?

No wonder editorial page writers and editors so often tap the talent in colleges and universities. Informed opinion is the coin of their realm. Journalists seeking insight, quotes, and full-blown op-eds naturally gravitate toward the campus just as Willie Sutton gravitated toward banks: It's where the learnin' is.

But while the professors in your Rolodex may be good sources for information and content, they may not always be your best. Many editors and editorialists would do well to cast their nets wider, to include the scholars toiling in the think tank community.

In terms of pure scholarship, the best think tanks are indistinguishable from the best universities. Indeed, tanks such as Stanford University's Hoover Institution and George Mason University's Mercatus Center originated and continue to serve as advanced policy study centers within their universities. And tank scholars often keep a hand in the academic world by teaching graduate courses "on the side."

Brookings Institute scholar Kent Weaver underscored the obvious difference between tanks and colleges years ago when he described think tanks as "universities without students."

There's another significant difference that editors should appreciate: Over the past three decades, most think tanks have evolved to make their scholars and their work more "media friendly."

Fifty years ago, think tank experts followed the path trod by their professorial brothers and sisters, producing mostly thick, scholarly tomes on topics that interested them and other cognoscenti. The Heritage Foundation, founded in 1973, revolutionized the industry by focusing its scholars on turning out short (at the time, fifteen-to thirty-five-page) papers that addressed topics expected to come before Congress soon. Nowadays, more than three-quarters of what we publish are short, to-the-point two-pagers zeroing in on what's being debated that week. And most other tanks have followed suit.

This revolution in think tank practice and procedure offers several practical advantages for editorial page editors seeking authoritative sources of information and content.

For starters, think tank analysts generally write more quickly and more lucidly than their academic colleagues. Professors are notorious for lacing their writing with cant expressions and near-indecipherable jargon. It's a natural consequence of working in a "publish or perish" environment in which the prized publications--specialized academic journals--judge the most "intellectual" (i.e., impenetrable) writing style to be the most publishable.

Scholars in modern think tanks, however, are trained to write sharply and clearly for a non-expert audience. Their assignment: to present cogent analyses of complex topics in short pieces, using language that lawmakers and other policy generalists can understand.

They also are trained to follow the public debate. Thus, when the U.S. Senate announces its intent to take up a bill the following day, the top think tanks will produce a quick analysis incorporating the latest information and their best recommendations that very evening.

Obviously this talent can serve newsrooms well. Analysts used to writing in sync with the news cycle, rather than a university press publishing schedule, can meet the hard deadlines of editorial pages. At Heritage, for example, most analysts don't blink when asked to deliver a same-day op-ed for an editor who needs to plug a hole left when a promised piece fails to materialize. And deliver they do.

Another advantage of tank sources: They often bring "real-world" experience to their work. Hands-on experience with the levers of government can yield profound insight into how things work, and that's what you get with people like Brookings' Dr. Isabel Sawhill (an associate director of the Office of Management and Budget) or Heritages Dr. Kim Holmes (an assistant secretary in Colin Powell's State Department).

Similarly, a military background can impart a wealth of understanding about the utility, limits, and challenges of projecting power--for example, in the writings of a Dr. James Carafano (Heritage) or a William Nash (Council on Foreign Relations).

Editors and writers interested in expanding their Rolodexes beyond the nation's campuses can easily find informed voices at think tanks, both at home or overseas. Looking to address a state policy question? The State Policy Network can help. Need a different take on international issues? The Atlas Economic Research Foundation can point you in the right direction. For a soup-to-nuts directory of tanks--state, national and international--bookmark policyexperts.org, an online database of experts and institutions maintained by The Heritage Foundation.

Editorialists looking to broaden the diversity of scholarly voices on their pages would do well to turn to the vibrant world of think tanks, where experts with real-world experience and impeccable credentials write clearly and persuasively on the most important issues of the day.

Jim Weidman is the director of editorial services for The Heritage Foundation. E-mail [e-mail]