5 ms·

The wealthiest schools would absolutely love this. There’s absolutely no pressure anymore on them to accept anyone but the wealthiest candidates anymore from a

The wealthiest schools would absolutely love this. There’s absolutely no pressure anymore on them to accept anyone but the wealthiest candidates anymore from across the world. Not only will they make more money the exclusivity means they will be more desirable as well. What a backwards idea from both the right and left perspective.

linuxftw 3y ago
> Not only will they make more money the exclusivity means they will be more desirable as well. In a functioning society, this would only be true if the education quality is actually superior.
- belltaco 3y ago
  It's a combination of prestige and education quality. And the fact that they can afford to be very selective, so they can keep the prestige intact by admitting the very best for the majority of the student base.
  - linuxftw 3y ago
    Consider this: The best and brightest that aren't admitted to the ivy league due to financial purposes will attend some other institution. Those institutions will raise their prestige over time as the market acknowledges the education outcomes. As long as we continue to let these ivy league institutions gate-keep society, we'll be stuck in this system. Cutting out federal tax-payer money from these wildly overpriced institutions is a good first step.
    - millzlane 3y ago
      >Cutting out federal tax-payer money from these wildly overpriced institutions is a good first step. I would tend to agree. It's usually my first response when someone says <insert community college here> isn't a good school.
- dotancohen 3y ago
  One does not sent their child to Harvard for the education. One sends their child to Harvard to build personal and business connections.
  - linuxftw 3y ago
    The question is should tax-payers be on the hook for this? Definitely not.
    - AmalgatedAmoeba 3y ago
      Why not? What’s the point of the state paying for higher education? I’d say encouraging social mobility and making more people into high value creators.
      - linuxftw 3y ago
        It's not very egalitarian to let wealthy private institutions be the gate keepers of social mobility. I don't believe we're talking about 'education' here, rather we're talking about status signaling. I'm 100% for free higher education paid by the state. I'm 100% against the current college and school system.
        candiodari 3y ago
        China does the opposite. To get access to government jobs (which include essentially all middle management and up positions in the private sector), there's an exam, the "Gaokao" ... administered by the government. It is absolutely infamous for the amount of fraud and corruption, as well as how far government employees will go to force their kids through the exam. In both senses - preparation, cheating, outright fraud. Fraud horror stories: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53316895 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53316895 Preparation horror stories: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/magazine/inside-a-chinese-test-prep-factory.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/magazine/inside-a-chinese... Cheating horror stories: https://time.com/4360968/china-gaokao-examination-university-entrance-cheating-jail-prison/ https://time.com/4360968/china-gaokao-examination-university... Having 5 different options in the private sector + a fallback (the state universities) seems a very desirable outcome compared to that, I must say.
gumby 3y ago
> The wealthiest schools would absolutely love this. > There’s absolutely no pressure anymore on them to accept anyone but the wealthiest candidates anymore from across the world. What a strange statement. Are they under any such pressure today? (I assume you mean exogenous pressure). They already choose the students they want.
- jameshart 3y ago
  They choose the students they want from among those who apply. Removing the availability of assistance will change that pool of applicants, obviously.
bell-cot 3y ago
> The wealthiest schools would absolutely love this. No, because: (1) Their "best and brightest" branding requires at least the perception that top geniuses from families of modest means still get in. (2) A perceived "You must be $THIS rich to enter" sign at the door - for anything, not just education - attracts a lot of negative reactions these days. (3) They can feel a slippy slope under their feet. There's a lot of Federal money flowing into their coffers (both literally, and de facto), and no reason for Congress to stop at cutting off just their Federal student loan money.

linuxftw 3y ago

> Not only will they make more money the exclusivity means they will be more desirable as well. In a functioning society, this would only be true if the education quality is actually superior.

belltaco 3y ago
It's a combination of prestige and education quality. And the fact that they can afford to be very selective, so they can keep the prestige intact by admitting the very best for the majority of the student base.
- linuxftw 3y ago
  Consider this: The best and brightest that aren't admitted to the ivy league due to financial purposes will attend some other institution. Those institutions will raise their prestige over time as the market acknowledges the education outcomes. As long as we continue to let these ivy league institutions gate-keep society, we'll be stuck in this system. Cutting out federal tax-payer money from these wildly overpriced institutions is a good first step.
  - millzlane 3y ago
    >Cutting out federal tax-payer money from these wildly overpriced institutions is a good first step. I would tend to agree. It's usually my first response when someone says <insert community college here> isn't a good school.
dotancohen 3y ago
One does not sent their child to Harvard for the education. One sends their child to Harvard to build personal and business connections.
- linuxftw 3y ago
  The question is should tax-payers be on the hook for this? Definitely not.
  - AmalgatedAmoeba 3y ago
    Why not? What’s the point of the state paying for higher education? I’d say encouraging social mobility and making more people into high value creators.
    - linuxftw 3y ago
      It's not very egalitarian to let wealthy private institutions be the gate keepers of social mobility. I don't believe we're talking about 'education' here, rather we're talking about status signaling. I'm 100% for free higher education paid by the state. I'm 100% against the current college and school system.
      - candiodari 3y ago
        China does the opposite. To get access to government jobs (which include essentially all middle management and up positions in the private sector), there's an exam, the "Gaokao" ... administered by the government. It is absolutely infamous for the amount of fraud and corruption, as well as how far government employees will go to force their kids through the exam. In both senses - preparation, cheating, outright fraud. Fraud horror stories: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53316895 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53316895 Preparation horror stories: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/magazine/inside-a-chinese-test-prep-factory.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/magazine/inside-a-chinese... Cheating horror stories: https://time.com/4360968/china-gaokao-examination-university-entrance-cheating-jail-prison/ https://time.com/4360968/china-gaokao-examination-university... Having 5 different options in the private sector + a fallback (the state universities) seems a very desirable outcome compared to that, I must say.

gumby 3y ago

> The wealthiest schools would absolutely love this. > There’s absolutely no pressure anymore on them to accept anyone but the wealthiest candidates anymore from across the world. What a strange statement. Are they under any such pressure today? (I assume you mean exogenous pressure). They already choose the students they want.

jameshart 3y ago
They choose the students they want from among those who apply. Removing the availability of assistance will change that pool of applicants, obviously.

bell-cot 3y ago

> The wealthiest schools would absolutely love this. No, because: (1) Their "best and brightest" branding requires at least the perception that top geniuses from families of modest means still get in. (2) A perceived "You must be $THIS rich to enter" sign at the door - for anything, not just education - attracts a lot of negative reactions these days. (3) They can feel a slippy slope under their feet. There's a lot of Federal money flowing into their coffers (both literally, and de facto), and no reason for Congress to stop at cutting off just their Federal student loan money.