15 ms·

Are not all universities "they paid a lot so we let them in"? I mean, there are subsidies and scholarships, but by and large it is pay to play. now... when it

• hiddencost 2y ago
  Sadly half a million dollars isn't a lot of money any more.
• criddell 2y ago
  > Are not all universities "they paid a lot so we let them in"? No. Being able to pay tuition and all the other expenses is necessary but not sufficient to gain admittance. My preference for admission is a lottery system. Have the school set the bar for admission (which can still contain some qualitative criteria) and then after that, it's a lottery for all that exceed that threshold.
  • dhosek 2y ago
    Harvey Mudd College has need-blind admissions so being able to pay tuition and other expenses is in fact, not necessary to gain admittance. They make up the difference through financial aid. Many other highly-selective schools also do need-blind admissions. Even those that don’t may still admit students to whom they will give generous financial aid to make up the difference between what their family can pay and what the school nominally charges.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • blendergeek 2y ago
    How about this system: Set the bar for admission as you described. Have two options for admissions for those who meet the bar. You can choose one and only one of the two systems per admissions cycle. Option 1: Lottery. Every student is entered into a drawing. Option 2: Auction. The highest bidders get admitted. The proportion of slots available for auction or lottery is the same as the proportion of students choosing auction vs lottery. This allows the rich to buy their way into the school while keeping the majority of the slots available for everyone without extreme wealth. Now I know what you are thinking, "why should the rich get to buy their way in?" To which I reply, why not? We only sell a small percentage of the slots, only to otherwise qualified applicants, and only to the highest bidders (meaning they necessarily overpay per the winners curse).
    • glitchc 2y ago
      The dual option scenario is status quo as a matter of fact.
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      You're describing the current system. It's a blind auction. It's how private universities in America are funded.
      • nostrademons 2y ago
        I'd argue that it's not the current system, and also not how the power-brokers who designed the current system want it. One of the important functions of the current university system is to cherry-pick the smartest, most charismatic, most driven, and most ambitious poor children and give them a seat at the table, indoctrinating them in the ways of the well-to-do and providing them opportunities within polite society. Basically, take anyone who rolled an 18 on one of their D&D attribute scores and make them a lord. By doing this, you decapitate the leadership of any potential revolution. Anyone who has enough charisma, intelligence, ambition to organize the poors into a movement that actually has a chance of success instead has a much easier pathway of going to university, getting a degree and a middle-class job, and enjoying a comfortable existence without the risk of being killed in the revolution. Keep your friends close and your (potential) enemies closer. Pure lottery admissions doesn't have this property. The biggest threat is that you miss someone talented, who then gets pissed off and overthrows the system. You want to have humans looking over the application packets of everybody, and you want lots of competing admissions departments so that if one of them screws up, that person gets snatched up by another university.
      • nabla9 2y ago
        Legacy admissions at private universities are not blind auction. It's not only money. It's a American way to have a class system.
        • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
          > Legacy admissions at private universities are not blind auction Donor admissions. I’ve literally heard Hamptons parents timing pregnancies to not overlap with billionaires’ kids, the theory being a million can buy a seat in an “off” year that would cost far more in an “on.”
  • tourmalinetaco 2y ago
    A lottery is too complicated and can lead to bias, just choose based on merits. That not only reinforces the prestige of the college but by using qualitative data the entire way makes it impossible to claim biases were at play.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • Manuel_D 2y ago
    The counterargument is that the large donations (often $10M or even $100 M and above) that wealthy doners give to help their kids get admitted enables universities to grant generous scholarships to smart but not wealthy students.
  • nabla9 2y ago
    When you think of it, I'm sure you admit that there are better ways than lottery. a) increase the number of people admitted. b) increase the bar for admissions so that it matches the admissions. Private Ivy League's are massive hedge funds that artificially limit admissions. For example, Harvard takes 1200 per year, receives 50,000 applications. Harvard could easily increase the number of admissions to 10 - 15 thousand and tighten admission criteria little bit.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• stronglikedan 2y ago
  No, but it used to be. I got into the first state university that I attended that way. When I tried it again some years later at a different state university, it no longer worked that way.
• anon291 2y ago
  Most of the good universities cover 100% of demonstrated financial need.
• golergka 2y ago
  The most important thing for a university or a school is it's signalling value for a graduate. If people know that "X graduate" is a mark of a well-educated, smart person, a school will be successful beyond measure. If, however, a school starts to admit anyone who's willing to pay and stop failing people, then the signal will dilute quickly, as will the prestige and applicants, eventually.