4 ms·
That seems... backwards. If the standard of admission remains the same (which is unrelated to cost of attending), lowering prices doesn't decrease the quality o
by creatornator 9y ago
That seems... backwards. If the standard of admission remains the same (which is unrelated to cost of attending), lowering prices doesn't decrease the quality of the admitted student body, but _increases_ it. Lowering the cost means that additionally to the students who would be admitted and are capable of affording the school, students who are more qualified but would otherwise _not_ be able to afford attending would then be able to apply and attend. Admissions can only benefit from giving opportunities to a larger body of prospective students. The wealth of a student isn't what gives a school prestige--it's their academic prowess and likelihood of becoming successful later that gives the school a good name.
- njarboe 9y agoWealth of the students family probably has some influence on "likelihood of becoming successful later". Especially if one measures success in how much money people donate to their alma mater.
- 121789 9y agoI don't think you're really disagreeing with the parent comment. In order to remain at a constant level of profitability with a price reduction for all students, universities would have to reduce the benefits given to students (e.g., larger class sizes, fewer building upgrades). This would negatively impact the student's likelihood of becoming successful (like you mentioned), and would potentially cause some high-potential students to switch to other schools. Brown is trying to get the best of all worlds: let the rich pay full price to maximize income, invest heavily in students to optimize chances of later success, and subsidize education for less wealthy students to keep the applicant pool as large as possible.