3 ms·

In the country I come from (France), all the top schools are publicly funded and you get in by taking exams where the whole country students compete once a year

In the country I come from (France), all the top schools are publicly funded and you get in by taking exams where the whole country students compete once a year. Based on how you rank, you get in or not. Most of them have really low annual tuitions. In some of them, you're even paid! Hard to imagine anything remotely close here when there's always a way to throw money at something (your congressman, dean...) to get the outcome you want.

ajross 7y ago
Go research financial aid programs and outcomes at elite US Universities. The fact that these schools are subject to financial pressure at the margins absolutely does not mean that they are closed to needy students. There are MANY unfair elements of the US educational system that disadvantage poor and minority students, but access to elite schools for the deserving fraction is just not one of them. We're doing fine here.
- mochomocha 7y ago
  What about the middle-class kid who doesn't qualify to any of these programs whose chance to get the best teachers and nurturing environment is spoiled by the dumb rich kid taking a spot and wasting it? What about the extra administrative, time burden and uncertainty of outcome the poor kids have to suffer to chase all these financial aid programs? There's clearly room for improvement.
  - ajross 7y ago
    > What about the middle-class kid who doesn't qualify to any of these programs Citation needed. I was that kid myself. There are no "programs" to "qualify" for. You file a financial aid form. Whatever you and your parents can reasonably pay, you pay, and the school covers the rest. It works for everyone. And one of the reasons it works for everyone is revenue that the school generates, and yeah, that includes some shady benefactor greasing. I'm not going to sit here and deny that legacy admissions are distasteful and unfair. I jumped in the thread to point out that what they do not do is significantly disadvantage the needy. If you really care about these issues, call your congressperson about federal education funding and stop bitching at Harvard.
    - anon12345690 7y ago
      yea that doesnt work. anyone with a family above poverty level basically gets no financial aid other saying get some loans. try asking literally any of the thousands of kids applying in california or texas or new york
wahern 7y ago
All the top schools are publicly funded because all the top schools were nationalized. And the rich have always been free to go to England, America, or elsewhere. Many of the premiere U.S. schools are also public, and in general I think it's implied that pay-to-play college admission proposals would be limited to private institutions. One reason the American university system is usually ranked so highly is because it's such a global destination for the world's rich. Not only does their tuition fund much of the system, but the demand drives the elite status, which in turn helps to attract real talent. And even smart people know that, all else being equal, it's better to sit in a classroom with the rich and elite. I don't think it's a coincidence that Stanford is a private university. Of the startups I've personally been involved with, directly or indirectly, I can't think of one that didn't successfully cash out where one of the founders didn't also have "connections", such as a rich uncle who made introductions. The fact that the rich and elite drive eduction in the U.S. creates problems of its own, but there's no getting around the inherent funding dilemmas. Especially in a culture like in the U.S. where t-a-x is a four-letter word (i.e. unspeakable), it's better to view these proposals as alternative taxation schemes.

ajross 7y ago

Go research financial aid programs and outcomes at elite US Universities. The fact that these schools are subject to financial pressure at the margins absolutely does not mean that they are closed to needy students. There are MANY unfair elements of the US educational system that disadvantage poor and minority students, but access to elite schools for the deserving fraction is just not one of them. We're doing fine here.

mochomocha 7y ago
What about the middle-class kid who doesn't qualify to any of these programs whose chance to get the best teachers and nurturing environment is spoiled by the dumb rich kid taking a spot and wasting it? What about the extra administrative, time burden and uncertainty of outcome the poor kids have to suffer to chase all these financial aid programs? There's clearly room for improvement.
- ajross 7y ago
  > What about the middle-class kid who doesn't qualify to any of these programs Citation needed. I was that kid myself. There are no "programs" to "qualify" for. You file a financial aid form. Whatever you and your parents can reasonably pay, you pay, and the school covers the rest. It works for everyone. And one of the reasons it works for everyone is revenue that the school generates, and yeah, that includes some shady benefactor greasing. I'm not going to sit here and deny that legacy admissions are distasteful and unfair. I jumped in the thread to point out that what they do not do is significantly disadvantage the needy. If you really care about these issues, call your congressperson about federal education funding and stop bitching at Harvard.
  - anon12345690 7y ago
    yea that doesnt work. anyone with a family above poverty level basically gets no financial aid other saying get some loans. try asking literally any of the thousands of kids applying in california or texas or new york

wahern 7y ago

All the top schools are publicly funded because all the top schools were nationalized. And the rich have always been free to go to England, America, or elsewhere. Many of the premiere U.S. schools are also public, and in general I think it's implied that pay-to-play college admission proposals would be limited to private institutions. One reason the American university system is usually ranked so highly is because it's such a global destination for the world's rich. Not only does their tuition fund much of the system, but the demand drives the elite status, which in turn helps to attract real talent. And even smart people know that, all else being equal, it's better to sit in a classroom with the rich and elite. I don't think it's a coincidence that Stanford is a private university. Of the startups I've personally been involved with, directly or indirectly, I can't think of one that didn't successfully cash out where one of the founders didn't also have "connections", such as a rich uncle who made introductions. The fact that the rich and elite drive eduction in the U.S. creates problems of its own, but there's no getting around the inherent funding dilemmas. Especially in a culture like in the U.S. where t-a-x is a four-letter word (i.e. unspeakable), it's better to view these proposals as alternative taxation schemes.