4 ms·

I have heard Harvard's student body composition strategy described as "wealth and high achievers", which makes a certain amount of sense if you're hoping to be

I have heard Harvard's student body composition strategy described as "wealth and high achievers", which makes a certain amount of sense if you're hoping to be a business catalyst that gets donations down the line. Slightly downscale, public flagships deeply rely on rich students paying full price to subsidize everyone else. If you wanted more poor kids to have a chance, you might have to pay higher taxes.

peterhadlaw 11y ago
Also, a big problem with public universities is that because they are so big and inefficient with money, and that they do not have enough money to begin with, to make up for it they accept foreigners who (with their parents factory money) are easily willing to pay DOUBLE the regular out of state tuition to have their children go to a good American school. On top of that, these children then fly back and don't continue to the country that established these schools in the first place - thus sapping our overall academic levels.
- geebee 11y ago
  There's a lot to this, but a university like UC Berkeley does educate far, far more undergraduates than a very elite private like Stanford or Harvard, and enrolls more low income students than the entire ivy league combined, something you can say about several different UC campuses. Although UC gets support from the state, the massive endowments and favored tax status of the very elite privates may be more valuable than direct state support, with fewer strings attached. The UCs are inefficient with money, but think about how much places like Stanford and Harvard are able to spend on an undergraduate class size that might be a quarter to a fifth the size of a UC, with a lower percentage of low income students as well. If you consider scale an important factor, measuring a university by how many students it can educate in addition to how well they do after graduation… you know, I think the UCs may be a far more "efficient" model than the ivies.

peterhadlaw 11y ago

Also, a big problem with public universities is that because they are so big and inefficient with money, and that they do not have enough money to begin with, to make up for it they accept foreigners who (with their parents factory money) are easily willing to pay DOUBLE the regular out of state tuition to have their children go to a good American school. On top of that, these children then fly back and don't continue to the country that established these schools in the first place - thus sapping our overall academic levels.

geebee 11y ago
There's a lot to this, but a university like UC Berkeley does educate far, far more undergraduates than a very elite private like Stanford or Harvard, and enrolls more low income students than the entire ivy league combined, something you can say about several different UC campuses. Although UC gets support from the state, the massive endowments and favored tax status of the very elite privates may be more valuable than direct state support, with fewer strings attached. The UCs are inefficient with money, but think about how much places like Stanford and Harvard are able to spend on an undergraduate class size that might be a quarter to a fifth the size of a UC, with a lower percentage of low income students as well. If you consider scale an important factor, measuring a university by how many students it can educate in addition to how well they do after graduation… you know, I think the UCs may be a far more "efficient" model than the ivies.