5 ms·

I never really understood the complaint. Rich people spend massive amounts of money to send their kid to a school. That massive, completely unnecessary investme

I never really understood the complaint. Rich people spend massive amounts of money to send their kid to a school. That massive, completely unnecessary investment is then reinvested across the students attending the school, who come from all different backgrounds. This is, in effect, one of the most common ways wealth is redistributed in the US. Why is it so bad? Maybe we should limit it, but the actual practice itself is probably more good than bad.

consp 3y ago
You can do one without the other. The biggest problem in my oppinion is the lack of the mentioned redistribution for the first 18 years of the poor sob's life who lucks out since that's way more important than the extra money for the already extremely wealthy institutions.
Shacklz 3y ago
> This is, in effect, one of the most common ways wealth is redistributed in the US. Why is it so bad? Because the government could simply tax those with wealth more and use taxation as a means of redistribution. Like most western countries do. Anand Giridharadas dissects this topic rather convincingly in his "Winners Take All", see also his infamous google talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM
- oatmeal1 3y ago
  > Because the government could simply tax those with wealth more and use taxation as a means of redistribution. I don't think the word "simply" applies when you are suggesting the government take money from billionaires with their armies of lobbyists and redistribute the money to the masses.
  - saghm 3y ago
    So because billionares will try to fight legislation to keep them from trying to make things more equal, instead we should have them just voluntarily give their money to universities, as if that somehow isn't even more susceptible to being spent the way they want rather than to make things more equal? I admit I'm biased in favor of using taxes instead of university donations to redistribute wealth, but even for a position I disagree with, this seems like a fairly weak argument.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      Using taxes would be (IMO) ideal, but that just isn't politically feasible in the US. I'm not sure I'm convinced that university donations from the wealthy is anywhere near as good when it comes to wealth distribution, but it's pointless to say "doing this with taxes is better" if we don't have those taxes and can't have those taxes. > So because billionares will try to fight legislation They don't "try". They succeed. Time and time again. Maybe at some point they'll stop succeeding, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
    - everforward 3y ago
      I just don't see a reason to pick a fight if the status quo is "everybody wins". Billionaires get to send their kids to good schools and everyone else at the school gets their education subsidized by those billionaires voluntarily. The only difference I can see with using taxes is that the billionaires' kids don't get to pick their school, and the government now has to waste time and effort collecting and auditing those tax dollars. I don't see a gain that's worth the effort. They can still donate money to the school or its employees if they want to influence the school's policy, or maybe just make some phone calls to accomplish the same. I'm sympathetic to the idea that billionaires have a lot of advantages that we should try to even out, but this feels like picking a fight for the sake of it. There are better things to try to fix in the world.
      - saghm 3y ago
        > I just don't see a reason to pick a fight if the status quo is "everybody wins". > Billionaires get to send their kids to good schools and everyone else at the school gets their education subsidized by those billionaires voluntarily. That's not "everybody though"; most people _don't_ attend elite institutions like that, and every spot that goes to a billionaires' kid means one less spot for a kid without wealthy parents able to work the system like that. The argument being made is that having taxes instead and using them for public goods that are accessible to a much wider swath of the population would be worth doing instead; I tend to think that the answer to this question is yes, it's worth the effort, but even I'm skeptical that "it's all going to suck anyways" or "anyone who doesn't go to an elite school is irrelevant to the question of how individual wealth can improve society as a whole" are the best counter-arguments to my point of view.
- rank0 3y ago
  Enlighten me. Which G20 nation has better economic conditions than the United States? According to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average... The PPP adjusted median income is highest in the US (not counting Iceland/Luxembourg for obvious reasons). And as a follow up, how stable is the government in your example countries? The US has the worlds oldest document-based government. The rest of the “western countries” have constantly collapsing systems/borders with the exception of France who has historically done exceptionally well in this regard. TL;DR - Why should we take notes on wealth redistribution from other societies which are less successful?
  - alex_young 3y ago
    I think it's worth pointing out that income inequality is much worse in the US; the Wikipedia page you referenced reflects this somewhat: "2020 average wage in the United States was $53,383, while the 2020 median wage was $34,612." If you define 'better economic conditions' as meaning more wealth in total, sure, the US is at or near the top. But however, if you're interested in knowing how most people are doing, the reality is that many of our European friends are better off than we are. The one example I'm personally aware of is Switzerland, which has a wealth tax and relatively low overall taxation. People they tend to live longer lives than we do, they have more disposable income, great infrastructure, a pristine natural environment, local manufacturing, and they have hundreds of years of political stability.
    - rank0 3y ago
      Median (not average) PPP income is highest in the US. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income While it’s true our income inequality is larger, the fact still remains that the median American makes more money than the median European (or any other comparable region). Ask yourself: Is it better for everyone to be richer and have high inequality? Or is it better for everyone to be poorer but more equal? EDIT: Switzerland is a good point. They are a prosperous and highly educated society! It’s just tough to compare in my mind because the US or EU is hundreds of times larger.
- sib 3y ago
  >> the government could simply tax those with wealth more...Like most western countries do Not sure where you're getting your data, but, looking at Europe as a proxy for "western countries" not including the US, in 1990, 12 countries in Europe had a wealth tax, while, as of 2019, only 3 did. Weather taxes were generally considered a failure.
- lobocinza 3y ago
  This is like shooting yourself in the foot. Billionaires will just move their wealth elsewhere. The only things this would accomplish are weaken the US economy and the dollar.
- psychlops 3y ago
  So, the wealthy ruling class will seize money from the wealthy merchant class and (checks notes) give it to the poor? I'd suggest they would use the new windfall of (never to be seen) money to launch another useless war.
sangnoir 3y ago
The fundamental question is: do we want admissions based on merit (or not)? Saying "Yes" and then carving out an exception for the wealthy is dishonest (IMO); if the answer is "No, admission is not on merit" then we need to talk about what other considerations would be fair game. Also, implicit in your argument is that universities getting more money is always a good thing - I take umbrage at that prior as universities should not be driven by the desire for perpetual capital growth.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  Upon further reflection, I can see how it is advantageous to the elite if "wealth" and "merit" are seen as interchangeable terms by the public.
oblio 3y ago
This perspective seems naive. Rich people tend to not spend a lot of money on stuff that doesn't make them more money. So if they do spend a lot, they think it's worth the expenses, including the "charity" part.
pnemonic 3y ago
> reinvested across the students attending the school I do not know this for a fact, but I WILDLY doubt what you said here, and I cannot imagine what could possess anyone to believe this. Especially at so-called "elite" schools.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> That massive, completely unnecessary investment is then reinvested across the students attending the school You're confusing legacy and donor. My only issue with children of donors getting on the Dean's List is the donation's tax deductibility. Legacy, on the other hand, isn't linked to resource contribution.
somethoughts 3y ago
Yes perhaps the unstated benefit of elite private schools is the long term relationships formed between children of legacy (i.e. generational wealth) and highly capable and hungry individuals who are getting in on merit alone. The two problems I see with legacy admissions is that: 1.) It has never been explicitly stated as a policy. If it were an upfront "get one admission for every 10 full price admissions/tuitions you buy" that would seem fairer. That said - I can see why a private school might be hesitant to be so transparent... 2.) The schools need to grow in order to keep the percentage of new admits to legacy admits constant as every generation of graduates is likely to produce at least 2x increase in legacy admits.
- xp84 3y ago
  > every generation of graduates is likely to produce at least 2x increase in legacy admits. If you're implying that people are having kids at the 2 per couple replacement rate, US is below that. Also it's forgetting that each couple likely took up 2 ivy league seats during their college years, so even if mom went to Yale and Dad went to Harvard, but their 2 kids both go to Harvard, that would be consuming 2 "legacy admit" seats which is 1x the number of seats from last generation. My hypothesis is disproven though, if it is super common that ivy leaguers very frequently marry outside the ivy league, then 1 becoming 2+ with each generation would be a problem.
- BryantD 3y ago
  Speaking as a legacy Harvard admission, I wouldn’t say you get a lot of long term relationships beteeen legacy students and merit students. Some, for sure, but there are different social circles at Harvard. Check out the Harvard social clubs sometime. That said this is a decades old anecdote rather than data.
DragonStrength 3y ago
They should be allowed to behave however they want, but whether we consider that behavior sufficient for non-profit status and tax-exempt endowments should be on the table. Donations for admission of your kids feels especially gross when talking about granting tax-advantaged status to institutions. It's a change in how we view them, to be sure, but questioning our expectations of tax-exempt non-profits seems like exactly what we want the government doing.
firebirdn99 3y ago
A lot of the costs in modern college programs over the last 20 to 30 years has been due to increase in administrative personnel, building up sports programs, etc. Modern colleges appear more like resorts than educational institutions. The presidents of these colleges also make massive amounts of money, many of even public or state college, which is highly disingenuous.
jimmydddd 3y ago
I think "legacy kid" is different from "kid of rich donor." They'll just be fewer kids of middle class alums and more kids of Middle Eastern and Asian upper classes.
synetic 3y ago
It’s bad because government is much more efficient at this using taxation than relying on the benevolence of rich people. Harvard educated far fewer students than U.C. Berkeley and Berkeley has 1/5 the endowment. The budgets are probably more or less in line with each other but that excess endowment amount speaks to a major inefficiency in terms of allocation of resources.

consp 3y ago

You can do one without the other. The biggest problem in my oppinion is the lack of the mentioned redistribution for the first 18 years of the poor sob's life who lucks out since that's way more important than the extra money for the already extremely wealthy institutions.

Shacklz 3y ago

> This is, in effect, one of the most common ways wealth is redistributed in the US. Why is it so bad? Because the government could simply tax those with wealth more and use taxation as a means of redistribution. Like most western countries do. Anand Giridharadas dissects this topic rather convincingly in his "Winners Take All", see also his infamous google talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM

oatmeal1 3y ago
> Because the government could simply tax those with wealth more and use taxation as a means of redistribution. I don't think the word "simply" applies when you are suggesting the government take money from billionaires with their armies of lobbyists and redistribute the money to the masses.
- saghm 3y ago
  So because billionares will try to fight legislation to keep them from trying to make things more equal, instead we should have them just voluntarily give their money to universities, as if that somehow isn't even more susceptible to being spent the way they want rather than to make things more equal? I admit I'm biased in favor of using taxes instead of university donations to redistribute wealth, but even for a position I disagree with, this seems like a fairly weak argument.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    Using taxes would be (IMO) ideal, but that just isn't politically feasible in the US. I'm not sure I'm convinced that university donations from the wealthy is anywhere near as good when it comes to wealth distribution, but it's pointless to say "doing this with taxes is better" if we don't have those taxes and can't have those taxes. > So because billionares will try to fight legislation They don't "try". They succeed. Time and time again. Maybe at some point they'll stop succeeding, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
  - everforward 3y ago
    I just don't see a reason to pick a fight if the status quo is "everybody wins". Billionaires get to send their kids to good schools and everyone else at the school gets their education subsidized by those billionaires voluntarily. The only difference I can see with using taxes is that the billionaires' kids don't get to pick their school, and the government now has to waste time and effort collecting and auditing those tax dollars. I don't see a gain that's worth the effort. They can still donate money to the school or its employees if they want to influence the school's policy, or maybe just make some phone calls to accomplish the same. I'm sympathetic to the idea that billionaires have a lot of advantages that we should try to even out, but this feels like picking a fight for the sake of it. There are better things to try to fix in the world.
    - saghm 3y ago
      > I just don't see a reason to pick a fight if the status quo is "everybody wins". > Billionaires get to send their kids to good schools and everyone else at the school gets their education subsidized by those billionaires voluntarily. That's not "everybody though"; most people _don't_ attend elite institutions like that, and every spot that goes to a billionaires' kid means one less spot for a kid without wealthy parents able to work the system like that. The argument being made is that having taxes instead and using them for public goods that are accessible to a much wider swath of the population would be worth doing instead; I tend to think that the answer to this question is yes, it's worth the effort, but even I'm skeptical that "it's all going to suck anyways" or "anyone who doesn't go to an elite school is irrelevant to the question of how individual wealth can improve society as a whole" are the best counter-arguments to my point of view.
rank0 3y ago
Enlighten me. Which G20 nation has better economic conditions than the United States? According to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average... The PPP adjusted median income is highest in the US (not counting Iceland/Luxembourg for obvious reasons). And as a follow up, how stable is the government in your example countries? The US has the worlds oldest document-based government. The rest of the “western countries” have constantly collapsing systems/borders with the exception of France who has historically done exceptionally well in this regard. TL;DR - Why should we take notes on wealth redistribution from other societies which are less successful?
- alex_young 3y ago
  I think it's worth pointing out that income inequality is much worse in the US; the Wikipedia page you referenced reflects this somewhat: "2020 average wage in the United States was $53,383, while the 2020 median wage was $34,612." If you define 'better economic conditions' as meaning more wealth in total, sure, the US is at or near the top. But however, if you're interested in knowing how most people are doing, the reality is that many of our European friends are better off than we are. The one example I'm personally aware of is Switzerland, which has a wealth tax and relatively low overall taxation. People they tend to live longer lives than we do, they have more disposable income, great infrastructure, a pristine natural environment, local manufacturing, and they have hundreds of years of political stability.
  - rank0 3y ago
    Median (not average) PPP income is highest in the US. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income While it’s true our income inequality is larger, the fact still remains that the median American makes more money than the median European (or any other comparable region). Ask yourself: Is it better for everyone to be richer and have high inequality? Or is it better for everyone to be poorer but more equal? EDIT: Switzerland is a good point. They are a prosperous and highly educated society! It’s just tough to compare in my mind because the US or EU is hundreds of times larger.
sib 3y ago
>> the government could simply tax those with wealth more...Like most western countries do Not sure where you're getting your data, but, looking at Europe as a proxy for "western countries" not including the US, in 1990, 12 countries in Europe had a wealth tax, while, as of 2019, only 3 did. Weather taxes were generally considered a failure.
lobocinza 3y ago
This is like shooting yourself in the foot. Billionaires will just move their wealth elsewhere. The only things this would accomplish are weaken the US economy and the dollar.
psychlops 3y ago
So, the wealthy ruling class will seize money from the wealthy merchant class and (checks notes) give it to the poor? I'd suggest they would use the new windfall of (never to be seen) money to launch another useless war.

sangnoir 3y ago

The fundamental question is: do we want admissions based on merit (or not)? Saying "Yes" and then carving out an exception for the wealthy is dishonest (IMO); if the answer is "No, admission is not on merit" then we need to talk about what other considerations would be fair game. Also, implicit in your argument is that universities getting more money is always a good thing - I take umbrage at that prior as universities should not be driven by the desire for perpetual capital growth.

sangnoir 3y ago
Upon further reflection, I can see how it is advantageous to the elite if "wealth" and "merit" are seen as interchangeable terms by the public.

oblio 3y ago

This perspective seems naive. Rich people tend to not spend a lot of money on stuff that doesn't make them more money. So if they do spend a lot, they think it's worth the expenses, including the "charity" part.

pnemonic 3y ago

> reinvested across the students attending the school I do not know this for a fact, but I WILDLY doubt what you said here, and I cannot imagine what could possess anyone to believe this. Especially at so-called "elite" schools.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> That massive, completely unnecessary investment is then reinvested across the students attending the school You're confusing legacy and donor. My only issue with children of donors getting on the Dean's List is the donation's tax deductibility. Legacy, on the other hand, isn't linked to resource contribution.

somethoughts 3y ago

Yes perhaps the unstated benefit of elite private schools is the long term relationships formed between children of legacy (i.e. generational wealth) and highly capable and hungry individuals who are getting in on merit alone. The two problems I see with legacy admissions is that: 1.) It has never been explicitly stated as a policy. If it were an upfront "get one admission for every 10 full price admissions/tuitions you buy" that would seem fairer. That said - I can see why a private school might be hesitant to be so transparent... 2.) The schools need to grow in order to keep the percentage of new admits to legacy admits constant as every generation of graduates is likely to produce at least 2x increase in legacy admits.

xp84 3y ago
> every generation of graduates is likely to produce at least 2x increase in legacy admits. If you're implying that people are having kids at the 2 per couple replacement rate, US is below that. Also it's forgetting that each couple likely took up 2 ivy league seats during their college years, so even if mom went to Yale and Dad went to Harvard, but their 2 kids both go to Harvard, that would be consuming 2 "legacy admit" seats which is 1x the number of seats from last generation. My hypothesis is disproven though, if it is super common that ivy leaguers very frequently marry outside the ivy league, then 1 becoming 2+ with each generation would be a problem.
BryantD 3y ago
Speaking as a legacy Harvard admission, I wouldn’t say you get a lot of long term relationships beteeen legacy students and merit students. Some, for sure, but there are different social circles at Harvard. Check out the Harvard social clubs sometime. That said this is a decades old anecdote rather than data.

DragonStrength 3y ago

They should be allowed to behave however they want, but whether we consider that behavior sufficient for non-profit status and tax-exempt endowments should be on the table. Donations for admission of your kids feels especially gross when talking about granting tax-advantaged status to institutions. It's a change in how we view them, to be sure, but questioning our expectations of tax-exempt non-profits seems like exactly what we want the government doing.

firebirdn99 3y ago

A lot of the costs in modern college programs over the last 20 to 30 years has been due to increase in administrative personnel, building up sports programs, etc. Modern colleges appear more like resorts than educational institutions. The presidents of these colleges also make massive amounts of money, many of even public or state college, which is highly disingenuous.

jimmydddd 3y ago

I think "legacy kid" is different from "kid of rich donor." They'll just be fewer kids of middle class alums and more kids of Middle Eastern and Asian upper classes.

synetic 3y ago

It’s bad because government is much more efficient at this using taxation than relying on the benevolence of rich people. Harvard educated far fewer students than U.C. Berkeley and Berkeley has 1/5 the endowment. The budgets are probably more or less in line with each other but that excess endowment amount speaks to a major inefficiency in terms of allocation of resources.