4 ms·

> Answer: Everyone involved! What about the rest of us? Did we benefit that George Bush (who claimed never to read a book at Yale) got the certification of an

> Answer: Everyone involved! What about the rest of us? Did we benefit that George Bush (who claimed never to read a book at Yale) got the certification of an elite degree? What you are saying is the equivalent of saying everyone in the mafia benefited by being part of the mafia. And btw before anyone talks about how Yale (or any other elite school) is private and can make their own decisions - no - they receive MASSIVE amounts of government funding. Princeton receives more per capita government funds than Rutgers.

bilbo0s 6y ago
The point he's making is that if the funding is removed, Princeton or Yale would no longer need to put up the façade. So the only thing that would matter is whether or not the Bush-type families of the US benefit from the system that is in place. The commenter is positing that the answer is "Yes". I agree with that assessment.
- newen 6y ago
  The other side of the argument is that if the facade is not there, if they only admit rich people, the university will lose its reputation and become irrelevant overnight. The thing that gives elite universities their reputation both their academic reputation and the elites that attend them. If they lose the academic reputation, the unis become irrelevant and might as well be a party house for rich people; no one will care except tabloids. If they lose the elites, the universities will still be prestigious universities. So to spell it out, what I’m saying is that rich people attending elite universities are not important for elite universities. It mainly benefits rich people.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    > The other side of the argument is that if the facade is not there, if they only admit rich people… I believe the point was that these schools don't need to accept subsidized student loans or other forms of federal funding. That doesn't mean only admitting rich people; they have enough resources to offer student aid to bring in the academic overachievers on their own, thus maintaining their reputation without federal help.
  - assap_cocky 6y ago
    But the smart people get networked into powerful circles. Lots of smart people get nowhere without having connections to people who control the money.
  - shajznnckfke 6y ago
    Most of the financial aid given out by these schools isn’t federal aid. They even give full rides to international students who aren’t eligible for federal at all, and middle-class kids whose families have too much income to be eligible. This aid is funded by the endowment which is donations from rich people. I think when people say Princeton receives a lot of federal money, they are talking about research grants, and possibly the effective subsidy that comes from the tax deductible status of donations from rich people. Each of these adds up to a lot more money than the Pell grants. If you take away the rich people, the school won’t be able to afford to operate this way.
- murgindrag 6y ago
  The facade is central to the business model. If the only people going to elite schools were rich and politically-connected: (1) It would look bad for everyone involved. (2) The schools would lose their prestige. Right now, if I want a good lawyer, I look to Yale, followed by Harvard/Stanford/Chicago. I have a 70% chance of getting a brilliant lawyer, and a 30% chance of getting a rich douchebag. For law firms, it doesn't actually matter too much, since reputation is mostly circular. If I want a good engineer, I look to MIT/Stanford/Caltech. I have a 80% chance of getting a good engineer, and a 20% chance of getting a rich douchebag. That's not a guaranteed hire, but it gets you in the door. Hopefully, my interview will screen out the rich douchebags, but it doesn't always. That model is breaking down a little bit, since people are starting to notice that the typical engineering applicant from e.g. Georgia Tech, Northeastern, or similar is better than MIT/Stanford/Caltech+++. Upside to rich douchebags: They're past the first round of all hiring processes. Between university brand and network, their kids can always find at least upper middle class jobs. In a best case, they can go on to be president! Or if they're running a company, they don't look obviously nepotistic. +++ It's worth noting there are sample biases here. Most qualified MIT/Stanford/Caltech graduates can find jobs without going through proletarian hiring processes, so the people who do actually apply for jobs through my web site are prefiltered.
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    The schools won't lose that prestige, however, because the majority of the kids they admit are academically gifted. If, say, 30% of a class are legacies, that means they pick and choose 70% of the class from academically gifted kids who are verified to be, "Our kind of people". (With all the exclusionary connotations of that phrase.) What we're talking about is the connection, during formative years, of the academically gifted to the ultra wealthy and ultra powerful. The idea that this would result in less prestige is fanciful in the extreme.
stale2002 6y ago
> What about the rest of us? The rest would have significantly less spots in college, if this funding method was gotten rid of. So less people would be educated. If rich people going to an elite college results in significantly more spots at that college being funded, then that is a benefit.
- murgindrag 6y ago
  It's not significantly more people. The US has 5000 universities and colleges, and perhaps a dozen really elite schools, depending on where you draw the line. Those schools have more money. No one else does. And only some of that money comes from donations. Much of it are your taxpayer dollars at work. The direct way is to donate money. The indirect way is to swing government funds.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > It's not significantly more people. Ok, well it is more people than the amount of spots that they take up. > Those schools have more money. No one else does. Ok, so if an elite person takes up one spot, but the extra money allows 2 more spots to open up, then that is a net increase in total number of slots. So that is still a benefit to the extra people who can go to that college.
    - tfehring 6y ago
      Spots at elite universities are constrained for the sake of artificial scarcity, not because of financial considerations.
- RIMR 6y ago
  But maybe if education was actually about pursuit of knowledge rather than simply networking to maximize your capitalist potential, we would end up with a more educated populace. Subsidizing college education ultimately opens up a spot in higher education for everyone. It's short-sighted to view the wealthy people manipulating our institutions with their money as our providers. They literally paid for the opportunity for people to view them that way.
ChrisLomont 6y ago
>Princeton receives more per capita government funds than Rutgers. Where do you find these numbers? Have a link?
sukilot 6y ago
The feds are paying for research, not George's tuition. George didn't need a scholarship.
- murgindrag 6y ago
  About 2/5 of the Fed's money goes to research, and about 3/5 goes to "overhead." "Overhead" then funds $200 million buildings, million dollar salaries, yacht clubs, financial ponzi schemes, press/legal/branding departments, and what not.

bilbo0s 6y ago

The point he's making is that if the funding is removed, Princeton or Yale would no longer need to put up the façade. So the only thing that would matter is whether or not the Bush-type families of the US benefit from the system that is in place. The commenter is positing that the answer is "Yes". I agree with that assessment.

newen 6y ago
The other side of the argument is that if the facade is not there, if they only admit rich people, the university will lose its reputation and become irrelevant overnight. The thing that gives elite universities their reputation both their academic reputation and the elites that attend them. If they lose the academic reputation, the unis become irrelevant and might as well be a party house for rich people; no one will care except tabloids. If they lose the elites, the universities will still be prestigious universities. So to spell it out, what I’m saying is that rich people attending elite universities are not important for elite universities. It mainly benefits rich people.
- nybble41 6y ago
  > The other side of the argument is that if the facade is not there, if they only admit rich people… I believe the point was that these schools don't need to accept subsidized student loans or other forms of federal funding. That doesn't mean only admitting rich people; they have enough resources to offer student aid to bring in the academic overachievers on their own, thus maintaining their reputation without federal help.
- assap_cocky 6y ago
  But the smart people get networked into powerful circles. Lots of smart people get nowhere without having connections to people who control the money.
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  Most of the financial aid given out by these schools isn’t federal aid. They even give full rides to international students who aren’t eligible for federal at all, and middle-class kids whose families have too much income to be eligible. This aid is funded by the endowment which is donations from rich people. I think when people say Princeton receives a lot of federal money, they are talking about research grants, and possibly the effective subsidy that comes from the tax deductible status of donations from rich people. Each of these adds up to a lot more money than the Pell grants. If you take away the rich people, the school won’t be able to afford to operate this way.
murgindrag 6y ago
The facade is central to the business model. If the only people going to elite schools were rich and politically-connected: (1) It would look bad for everyone involved. (2) The schools would lose their prestige. Right now, if I want a good lawyer, I look to Yale, followed by Harvard/Stanford/Chicago. I have a 70% chance of getting a brilliant lawyer, and a 30% chance of getting a rich douchebag. For law firms, it doesn't actually matter too much, since reputation is mostly circular. If I want a good engineer, I look to MIT/Stanford/Caltech. I have a 80% chance of getting a good engineer, and a 20% chance of getting a rich douchebag. That's not a guaranteed hire, but it gets you in the door. Hopefully, my interview will screen out the rich douchebags, but it doesn't always. That model is breaking down a little bit, since people are starting to notice that the typical engineering applicant from e.g. Georgia Tech, Northeastern, or similar is better than MIT/Stanford/Caltech+++. Upside to rich douchebags: They're past the first round of all hiring processes. Between university brand and network, their kids can always find at least upper middle class jobs. In a best case, they can go on to be president! Or if they're running a company, they don't look obviously nepotistic. +++ It's worth noting there are sample biases here. Most qualified MIT/Stanford/Caltech graduates can find jobs without going through proletarian hiring processes, so the people who do actually apply for jobs through my web site are prefiltered.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  The schools won't lose that prestige, however, because the majority of the kids they admit are academically gifted. If, say, 30% of a class are legacies, that means they pick and choose 70% of the class from academically gifted kids who are verified to be, "Our kind of people". (With all the exclusionary connotations of that phrase.) What we're talking about is the connection, during formative years, of the academically gifted to the ultra wealthy and ultra powerful. The idea that this would result in less prestige is fanciful in the extreme.

stale2002 6y ago

> What about the rest of us? The rest would have significantly less spots in college, if this funding method was gotten rid of. So less people would be educated. If rich people going to an elite college results in significantly more spots at that college being funded, then that is a benefit.

murgindrag 6y ago
It's not significantly more people. The US has 5000 universities and colleges, and perhaps a dozen really elite schools, depending on where you draw the line. Those schools have more money. No one else does. And only some of that money comes from donations. Much of it are your taxpayer dollars at work. The direct way is to donate money. The indirect way is to swing government funds.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > It's not significantly more people. Ok, well it is more people than the amount of spots that they take up. > Those schools have more money. No one else does. Ok, so if an elite person takes up one spot, but the extra money allows 2 more spots to open up, then that is a net increase in total number of slots. So that is still a benefit to the extra people who can go to that college.
  - tfehring 6y ago
    Spots at elite universities are constrained for the sake of artificial scarcity, not because of financial considerations.
RIMR 6y ago
But maybe if education was actually about pursuit of knowledge rather than simply networking to maximize your capitalist potential, we would end up with a more educated populace. Subsidizing college education ultimately opens up a spot in higher education for everyone. It's short-sighted to view the wealthy people manipulating our institutions with their money as our providers. They literally paid for the opportunity for people to view them that way.

ChrisLomont 6y ago

>Princeton receives more per capita government funds than Rutgers. Where do you find these numbers? Have a link?

sukilot 6y ago

The feds are paying for research, not George's tuition. George didn't need a scholarship.

murgindrag 6y ago
About 2/5 of the Fed's money goes to research, and about 3/5 goes to "overhead." "Overhead" then funds $200 million buildings, million dollar salaries, yacht clubs, financial ponzi schemes, press/legal/branding departments, and what not.