4 ms·
> the school's way of competing for the piles of grant money replacement known as undergrads. I say it's a consequence of their windfall profits from 3-5% year
by digler999 10y ago
> the school's way of competing for the piles of grant money replacement known as undergrads.
I say it's a consequence of their windfall profits from 3-5% yearly tuition increases. Most institutions have "use-it-or-lose-it" budgets. Their accountants can only be so clever in finding ways to spend it, lest it pile up and get released on a state budget report. Then everyone would scream "Why does UXY have a $50mil surplus when they just increased tuition!".
If they wanted to actually compete, they would lower prices. Thats what attracts buyers.
- ska 10y agoIf they wanted to actually compete, they would lower prices. Thats what attracts buyers. That is a dangerously oversimplified view of how markets work. Buyers are attracted by a broad range of factors, only one of which is price.
- wonder_er 10y ago> That is a dangerously oversimplified view of how markets work. Because university is so expensive, we're told that more things matter than just price. Buyers are obviously attracted to more than low prices, but some buyers are highly price-sensitive. So, we should let them find something that works for them.
- ska 10y agoThere already is a huge range in the cost of university, so what you are describing should already be in effect. Do you have evidence to the contrary? (FWIW I also think that it is too expensive for various reasons, but also that it is too naive to consider only price here)