4 ms·

You are missing the point. It is not a problem of an individual school refusing to give academic scholarships. Instead the problem is the schools all agreeing

by stale2002 4y ago

You are missing the point. It is not a problem of an individual school refusing to give academic scholarships. Instead the problem is the schools all agreeing together to do this. By all means, let each university individually choose if they want to allow scholarships or not, with zero agreement between the schools.

ccooffee 4y ago
How is this different from a HomeOwner's Association (HOA) enforcing community standards? I don't understand the linked article (or your) point about this being some sort of illegal collusion. Can you help me understand how this is fundamentally different from an HOA enforcing things like "no boat parking"?
- flerchin 4y ago
  The schools offer competing services for the consumers. They've all agreed to not compete for certain consumers in the same way. Does that help you? An HOA is not an appropriate metaphor.
  - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
    A university shouldn’t be in the business of competition for athletic stars. Let NBA and other sports organizations do that. They may open their own sports schools and whatnot.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      >They may open their own sports schools and whatnot. why would they open themselves up to those kinds of expenses and liabilities when their feeder systems are working just fine for them now?
      - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
        College isn't supposed to be a farm league. Baseball has a workable system and they have the most grueling schedule of all professional sports. Nothing prevents the NFL and NBA from doing the same.
        AceyMan 4y ago
        >they have the most grueling schedule of all professional sports The ATP & WTA would take issue with that claim.
        dylan604 4y ago
        > they have the most grueling schedule of all professional sports because they don't have a grueling sport.
  - oarabbus_ 4y ago
    I don't see how this clarifies that it's not a appropriate metaphor. There are hundreds of schools or more that _do_ compete for consumers in that way. Similarly, HOAs in some areas may restrict boat parking. Other HOAs however, will allow it. Why is the metaphor not appropriate?
    - stale2002 4y ago
      The metaphor is not appropriate because a HOA isn't limiting competition in any meaningful or significant way. Whether or not a couple houses in a couple block area, or 1 apartment building all "collude" to do something has very little effect on the competitive market of the massive housing industry. But large, major players in the education space (each of which enrolls thousands of students), all agreeing together to do something, has a much larger effect, in comparison.
      - oarabbus_ 4y ago
        >Whether or not a couple houses in a couple block area, or 1 apartment building all "collude" to do something has very little effect on the competitive market of the massive housing industry. This is not correct. There are HOAs spanning dozens of miles, with and tens of thousands of homes. >But large, major players in the education space (each of which enrolls thousands of students), all agreeing together to do something, has a much larger effect, in comparison. The vast majority of universities offer athletic scholarships, this is not really true either.
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        HOA's primary function is not to buy, sell and flip houses. They are not a market participant, they do not have any obligation towards the housing market. Primary function of a univerisy is the education market. It is shocking to see the nunber of 'free market' advocates that do not understand basic functions of a market
    - flerchin 4y ago
      HOAs are local government, not market participants.
- Analemma_ 4y ago
  HOAs should be illegal as well.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > How is this different from a HomeOwner's Association (HOA) enforcing community standards? This is a horrible comparison. Ivy league schools are competiting businesses in a market. Much different than a group of homes, which really aren't directly competing in a market. (even though, I am sure you can twist an argument that they are. They really aren't. Most people are not trying to sell their homes, and there are a lot of homes all around the world. 'market collusion' between a couple homes not a big deal compared to huge businesses doing it). > from an HOA enforcing things like "no boat parking"? Because 1 ivy league school should have no business forcing a different school on the other side of the country on how they run their business, thats why. Thats market collusion.
  - tedunangst 4y ago
    > Because 1 ivy league school should have no business forcing a different school on the other side of the country on how they run their business Fortunately, all the Ivy League schools are on the same side, in same corner even, of the country.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      So no they should have no business forcing other ivy leagues to do things then. Because houses in the same HOA are literally right next to each other. Like a block away, whereas the same is not true for schools.
      - oarabbus_ 4y ago
        >Because houses in the same HOA are literally right next to each other. Like a block away, whereas the same is not true for schools. There are HOAs with tens of thousands of homes, spanning dozens of miles, this is not true.
        stale2002 4y ago
        > There are HOAs with tens of thousands of homes, spanning dozens of miles Still has a significantly smaller effect on the market than a bunch of education institutions coming together to collude. The education systems aren't even next to each other either. They don't have any business controlling other schools. At least there is some nominal justification for a house to control their neighbors house, given that it is a living community. I do not think that education systems as an entire system have the same justification to control one another. Instead, they should compete in the market.
AlbertCory 4y ago
Thank you, you've grasped the point that the others missed: it's collusion and price-fixing that's illegal. Not whether failing to offer athletic scholarships was a good idea. The courts didn't care what they were colluding about, just that they were colluding. If they independently come to the same decision, that's one thing, just like an oil company following the price decisions of another one is fine, but the two of them agreeing to raise prices is not.
nobodyandproud 4y ago
Then why the long rambling on the moral outcome? It can be both true that the collusion is legally shaky—I’m not disputing that—and the author has an axe to grind. I believe the writer wants a particular outcome for reasons beyond just forbidding collusion. Finally it’s also true that the DoE’s national accreditation can forbid athletic scholarships. I personally believe it should, if we want higher education to be about cultivating knowledge and intellect again. It may even drive out the big business that college sports has become, along with the administrative bloat to support it.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > Then why the long rambling on the moral outcome? Because monopolistic collision is bad, that's why. Not just illegal. Also bad. > if we want higher education to be about cultivating knowledge and intellect again. If an individual college wants to get rid of all it's sports programs, or scholarships, or whatever, and decides to do that individually, then they should go ahead. What they shouldn't do, though, is try and force all the other colleges to do the same thing, with monopolistic agreements. To repeat, if a individual college wants to not have athletic scholarships, fine. But no agreement that forces all the other colleges to do the same thing. Let each college, individually decide how much they want to focus on this, instead of having monopolistic agreements.
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    > Then why the long rambling on the moral outcome? The moral outcome the author is promoting isn't about anti-collusion, but diversity: "The need for diversity in education is as vital today as ever. But it’s not clear whether the Ivy Agreement’s ban on athletic scholarships actually promotes that end. One might even wonder whether, by not competing over sports stars, the schools are reducing the diversity of their student bodies." Except, the author admits later that athletic programs simply promote more athletics and the claims of diversity through athletics is dubious.

ccooffee 4y ago

How is this different from a HomeOwner's Association (HOA) enforcing community standards? I don't understand the linked article (or your) point about this being some sort of illegal collusion. Can you help me understand how this is fundamentally different from an HOA enforcing things like "no boat parking"?

flerchin 4y ago
The schools offer competing services for the consumers. They've all agreed to not compete for certain consumers in the same way. Does that help you? An HOA is not an appropriate metaphor.
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago
  A university shouldn’t be in the business of competition for athletic stars. Let NBA and other sports organizations do that. They may open their own sports schools and whatnot.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    >They may open their own sports schools and whatnot. why would they open themselves up to those kinds of expenses and liabilities when their feeder systems are working just fine for them now?
    - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
      College isn't supposed to be a farm league. Baseball has a workable system and they have the most grueling schedule of all professional sports. Nothing prevents the NFL and NBA from doing the same.
      - AceyMan 4y ago
        >they have the most grueling schedule of all professional sports The ATP & WTA would take issue with that claim.
      - dylan604 4y ago
        > they have the most grueling schedule of all professional sports because they don't have a grueling sport.
- oarabbus_ 4y ago
  I don't see how this clarifies that it's not a appropriate metaphor. There are hundreds of schools or more that _do_ compete for consumers in that way. Similarly, HOAs in some areas may restrict boat parking. Other HOAs however, will allow it. Why is the metaphor not appropriate?
  - stale2002 4y ago
    The metaphor is not appropriate because a HOA isn't limiting competition in any meaningful or significant way. Whether or not a couple houses in a couple block area, or 1 apartment building all "collude" to do something has very little effect on the competitive market of the massive housing industry. But large, major players in the education space (each of which enrolls thousands of students), all agreeing together to do something, has a much larger effect, in comparison.
    - oarabbus_ 4y ago
      >Whether or not a couple houses in a couple block area, or 1 apartment building all "collude" to do something has very little effect on the competitive market of the massive housing industry. This is not correct. There are HOAs spanning dozens of miles, with and tens of thousands of homes. >But large, major players in the education space (each of which enrolls thousands of students), all agreeing together to do something, has a much larger effect, in comparison. The vast majority of universities offer athletic scholarships, this is not really true either.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        HOA's primary function is not to buy, sell and flip houses. They are not a market participant, they do not have any obligation towards the housing market. Primary function of a univerisy is the education market. It is shocking to see the nunber of 'free market' advocates that do not understand basic functions of a market
  - flerchin 4y ago
    HOAs are local government, not market participants.
Analemma_ 4y ago
HOAs should be illegal as well.
stale2002 4y ago
> How is this different from a HomeOwner's Association (HOA) enforcing community standards? This is a horrible comparison. Ivy league schools are competiting businesses in a market. Much different than a group of homes, which really aren't directly competing in a market. (even though, I am sure you can twist an argument that they are. They really aren't. Most people are not trying to sell their homes, and there are a lot of homes all around the world. 'market collusion' between a couple homes not a big deal compared to huge businesses doing it). > from an HOA enforcing things like "no boat parking"? Because 1 ivy league school should have no business forcing a different school on the other side of the country on how they run their business, thats why. Thats market collusion.
- tedunangst 4y ago
  > Because 1 ivy league school should have no business forcing a different school on the other side of the country on how they run their business Fortunately, all the Ivy League schools are on the same side, in same corner even, of the country.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    So no they should have no business forcing other ivy leagues to do things then. Because houses in the same HOA are literally right next to each other. Like a block away, whereas the same is not true for schools.
    - oarabbus_ 4y ago
      >Because houses in the same HOA are literally right next to each other. Like a block away, whereas the same is not true for schools. There are HOAs with tens of thousands of homes, spanning dozens of miles, this is not true.
      - stale2002 4y ago
        > There are HOAs with tens of thousands of homes, spanning dozens of miles Still has a significantly smaller effect on the market than a bunch of education institutions coming together to collude. The education systems aren't even next to each other either. They don't have any business controlling other schools. At least there is some nominal justification for a house to control their neighbors house, given that it is a living community. I do not think that education systems as an entire system have the same justification to control one another. Instead, they should compete in the market.

AlbertCory 4y ago

Thank you, you've grasped the point that the others missed: it's collusion and price-fixing that's illegal. Not whether failing to offer athletic scholarships was a good idea. The courts didn't care what they were colluding about, just that they were colluding. If they independently come to the same decision, that's one thing, just like an oil company following the price decisions of another one is fine, but the two of them agreeing to raise prices is not.

nobodyandproud 4y ago

Then why the long rambling on the moral outcome? It can be both true that the collusion is legally shaky—I’m not disputing that—and the author has an axe to grind. I believe the writer wants a particular outcome for reasons beyond just forbidding collusion. Finally it’s also true that the DoE’s national accreditation can forbid athletic scholarships. I personally believe it should, if we want higher education to be about cultivating knowledge and intellect again. It may even drive out the big business that college sports has become, along with the administrative bloat to support it.

stale2002 4y ago
> Then why the long rambling on the moral outcome? Because monopolistic collision is bad, that's why. Not just illegal. Also bad. > if we want higher education to be about cultivating knowledge and intellect again. If an individual college wants to get rid of all it's sports programs, or scholarships, or whatever, and decides to do that individually, then they should go ahead. What they shouldn't do, though, is try and force all the other colleges to do the same thing, with monopolistic agreements. To repeat, if a individual college wants to not have athletic scholarships, fine. But no agreement that forces all the other colleges to do the same thing. Let each college, individually decide how much they want to focus on this, instead of having monopolistic agreements.
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  > Then why the long rambling on the moral outcome? The moral outcome the author is promoting isn't about anti-collusion, but diversity: "The need for diversity in education is as vital today as ever. But it’s not clear whether the Ivy Agreement’s ban on athletic scholarships actually promotes that end. One might even wonder whether, by not competing over sports stars, the schools are reducing the diversity of their student bodies." Except, the author admits later that athletic programs simply promote more athletics and the claims of diversity through athletics is dubious.