4 ms·

Could you elaborate a little on why that's relevant? Is the extra money providing materially better education? Is it somehow impossible for Chicago to lower t

Could you elaborate a little on why that's relevant? Is the extra money providing materially better education? Is it somehow impossible for Chicago to lower their costs?

rayiner 7y ago
It's a reference to the "land of the free" dig. The U.S. already spends similar amounts of public money on higher education as Germany, etc. (As a %-age of GDP). We don't have free universities, however, because our universities spend vastly more money. That has benefits for students. In my own experience, going to an expensive private law school was a much nicer experience than going to a rigorous, but more spartan, public engineering school for undergrad. There was much more academic support, hand-holding, mental health services, beautiful facilities, etc. Even American community colleges are really nice. (My mother in law works at a community college in rural Oregon. It's got a fantastic, brand-new fitness facility with sweeping views, etc.) We can debate about whether that's a good use of money, or what spending priorities should be. Maybe the right thing to do is cut costs, preserving an equivalent education experience while cutting frills. Or, maybe Americans are so rich it's reasonable for us to splurge on all of that stuff. But Americans aren't irrational. It's not like Americans are just sitting here refusing to adopt an approach that would get them the same college experience for vastly less money.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  > We can debate about whether that's a good use of money... It's not. I can get a gym membership for $10/month. And I'm not going to college to get a degree in physical fitness. And, your argument doesn't hold numerically. Say 440 euros/year = $500/year. That's 1/200 the cost to the student of the University of Chicago. So Chicago spends 5 times as much per student; it still looks insane from the cost/benefit perspective.

Could you elaborate a little on why that's relevant? Is the extra money providing materially better education? Is it somehow impossible for Chicago to lower their costs?

rayiner 7y ago

It's a reference to the "land of the free" dig. The U.S. already spends similar amounts of public money on higher education as Germany, etc. (As a %-age of GDP). We don't have free universities, however, because our universities spend vastly more money. That has benefits for students. In my own experience, going to an expensive private law school was a much nicer experience than going to a rigorous, but more spartan, public engineering school for undergrad. There was much more academic support, hand-holding, mental health services, beautiful facilities, etc. Even American community colleges are really nice. (My mother in law works at a community college in rural Oregon. It's got a fantastic, brand-new fitness facility with sweeping views, etc.) We can debate about whether that's a good use of money, or what spending priorities should be. Maybe the right thing to do is cut costs, preserving an equivalent education experience while cutting frills. Or, maybe Americans are so rich it's reasonable for us to splurge on all of that stuff. But Americans aren't irrational. It's not like Americans are just sitting here refusing to adopt an approach that would get them the same college experience for vastly less money.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> We can debate about whether that's a good use of money... It's not. I can get a gym membership for $10/month. And I'm not going to college to get a degree in physical fitness. And, your argument doesn't hold numerically. Say 440 euros/year = $500/year. That's 1/200 the cost to the student of the University of Chicago. So Chicago spends 5 times as much per student; it still looks insane from the cost/benefit perspective.