4 ms·

This is such an attractive yet mistaken way of looking at the situation. The more accurate framing is "100% of people pay for 100% of people to have the opport

This is such an attractive yet mistaken way of looking at the situation. The more accurate framing is "100% of people pay for 100% of people to have the opportunity to go to college". A good analogue is insurance: even though 99% of people might never file a claim, it's not 99% subsidizing the 1% the do-- it's 100% paying for protection from financial ruin that 100% receive. Your framing would apply if there somehow were a group--people with blue eyes, people born in May, whatever--to whom access was limited.

Aerroon 5y ago
>The more accurate framing is "100% of people pay for 100% of people to have the opportunity to go to college". It's not though. If you lack the aptitude then you will not have this opportunity. You will still have to pay for the ones that do go though. Oh, and they're going to be out-earning you in the future too. >Your framing would apply if there somehow were a group--people with blue eyes, people born in May, whatever--to whom access was limited. But this is the case though. Just look at college attendance in urban vs rural populations.