3 ms·

Is that view that common in Europe? Seems awfully self-serving to be the broad consensus.

emteycz 6y ago
In central Europe, public universities that are free for all are the norm, sometimes even for foreigners (other EU citizens are not even considered foreigners). For-profit schools are often of questionable quality, serving those who couldn't pass the bar of the easiest of the free public schools, or are unable to make the minimal commitment to pass them, but still want the diploma. It doesn't help that these for-profit schools try to fake prestige very hard (as opposed to the 1000-year old public universities that indeniably are prestigious, in a different way). Overall yes, schools known only for their claims of prestige, as opposed to their academical merit, are looked down upon.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Harvard is private, yes, but it's not for-profit. Those schools are likewise considered low-quality in the states. Harvard is a non-public non-profit, and is cheaper than the comparable public university for 90% of Americans after aid.
  - rytor718 6y ago
    This needs a hard disclaimer, as in the USA "non-profit" is simply a term used to define a tax bracket. The spirit of the term is grossly violated when Red Cross can be in any category with Harvard or the like--schools that expressly serve the rich (and allow the poor). In no meaningful way can a school who charges $100k+ for tuition--which is required in addition to "endowments" and other such huge checks they receive to help pay their wealthy administrators--be considered an actual non-profit organization. It is a tax ruse. To put it even simpler: if the wealth of my parents is a metric for how much they'll charge me to attend, clearly "profit" is important, and specifically scarcity, a prime driver of profit in capitalist society. It sounds like the definition of "non-profit" in EU is different than here in the USA.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      > the USA "non-profit" is simply a term used to define a tax bracket This understates the importance of the distinction - non-profits don't have shareholders, don't return profit to owners, etc. They are very different. That does not mean that you can't create a non-profit for any terrible goal. You could form a non-profit for directing funds to Nazi organizations globally. But a non-profit is not aiming to make money for some owners and in an educational context, that is important. > if the wealth of my parents is a metric for how much they'll charge me to attend, clearly "profit" is important, and specifically scarcity This is facile. Is medicaid for-profit? If your family makes too much, you will be booted off and have to pay for your own healthcare. Indeed, any means-tested governmental program falls under your definition of operated for "profit" which is nonsense when those programs are redistributive (although perhaps not redistributive enough).

In central Europe, public universities that are free for all are the norm, sometimes even for foreigners (other EU citizens are not even considered foreigners). For-profit schools are often of questionable quality, serving those who couldn't pass the bar of the easiest of the free public schools, or are unable to make the minimal commitment to pass them, but still want the diploma. It doesn't help that these for-profit schools try to fake prestige very hard (as opposed to the 1000-year old public universities that indeniably are prestigious, in a different way). Overall yes, schools known only for their claims of prestige, as opposed to their academical merit, are looked down upon.

whimsicalism 6y ago
Harvard is private, yes, but it's not for-profit. Those schools are likewise considered low-quality in the states. Harvard is a non-public non-profit, and is cheaper than the comparable public university for 90% of Americans after aid.
- rytor718 6y ago
  This needs a hard disclaimer, as in the USA "non-profit" is simply a term used to define a tax bracket. The spirit of the term is grossly violated when Red Cross can be in any category with Harvard or the like--schools that expressly serve the rich (and allow the poor). In no meaningful way can a school who charges $100k+ for tuition--which is required in addition to "endowments" and other such huge checks they receive to help pay their wealthy administrators--be considered an actual non-profit organization. It is a tax ruse. To put it even simpler: if the wealth of my parents is a metric for how much they'll charge me to attend, clearly "profit" is important, and specifically scarcity, a prime driver of profit in capitalist society. It sounds like the definition of "non-profit" in EU is different than here in the USA.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > the USA "non-profit" is simply a term used to define a tax bracket This understates the importance of the distinction - non-profits don't have shareholders, don't return profit to owners, etc. They are very different. That does not mean that you can't create a non-profit for any terrible goal. You could form a non-profit for directing funds to Nazi organizations globally. But a non-profit is not aiming to make money for some owners and in an educational context, that is important. > if the wealth of my parents is a metric for how much they'll charge me to attend, clearly "profit" is important, and specifically scarcity This is facile. Is medicaid for-profit? If your family makes too much, you will be booted off and have to pay for your own healthcare. Indeed, any means-tested governmental program falls under your definition of operated for "profit" which is nonsense when those programs are redistributive (although perhaps not redistributive enough).