4 ms·

the ideal is that college should be very expensive for rich people and cheap, free, or at least more affordable, for less wealthy people. american universities

the ideal is that college should be very expensive for rich people and cheap, free, or at least more affordable, for less wealthy people. american universities get closer to this ideal than you might expect. the days of outrageous student debt are thankfully fading away, at least for undergraduate degrees. it would make more sense to do this redistribution through taxes if possible, but many US institutions are private so that doesn’t really work. so the colleges basically have their own privately-run means testing programs, and like all such programs there are flaws and loopholes.

hooo 2y ago
Why should college be very expensive for rich people?
- analog31 2y ago
  According to the old story, the New York Times asked a famous bank robber why he robbed banks. The answer: Because that's where the money is. The money for funding public and quasi-private (universities and hospitals) institutions has to come from somewhere. Making it equally affordable for everybody doesn't raise enough money to maintain operations. Same for funding the government. Granted, I think all of those institutions are due for reforms, which have little chance of happening right now, but still, I think the basic funding equation can't be eliminated.
  - estebank 2y ago
    > The money for funding public and quasi-private (universities and hospitals) institutions has to come from somewhere. Making it equally affordable for everybody doesn't raise enough money to maintain operations. Same for funding the government. That's what taxes are for: you take proportionally more from people with more assets. I find the entire conversation about "not wanting my tax dollars to pay for some millionaire's kids' education", because those millionaires would end up paying the difference in taxes (under a fair system) than they do now. That's without even considering the perverse incentives at play when a wealthy parent can use the payment or withholding of payment for education as a way to control their kids. Just because a parent is wealthy it doesn't necessarily mean that the kid would have access to those funds, or that explicit or implicit requirements that could be imposed to access those funds would be reasonable.
    - analog31 2y ago
      Indeed, and I think we're not far apart on this. I would support funding of things like education and healthcare through progressive taxation, and making them free, or some nominal cost.
- wesselbindt 2y ago
  Because they can afford it. It's a redistribution tactic. You can also phrase it like this: college should be free for all to attend. Then, as long as you have a progressive tax scheme, the outcome is the same. Cheap for the poor, expensive for the rich.
  - hooo 2y ago
    Then are you suggesting buying anything should work like this?
    - wesselbindt 2y ago
      Not at all. But in markets with inelastic demand, I'd say this is probably the way to go.
    - baq 2y ago
      Are you suggesting education is like potatoes?
      - ponector 2y ago
        I would say it is more a service, like a massage or a week in a resort hotel.
        baq 2y ago
        If you are an education provider, yes. If you are receiving education, I'd say it's totally different due to expected value added over the student lifetime.
        1dontknow_ 2y ago
        Like a massage? You can't be serious. I would consider it a basic service like healthcare, power, or water, so it should be easily accessible, have certain quality standards and very affordable, basically a decision to go there shouldn't have any financial impact.. but surely that's ideal.
linksnapzz 2y ago
the ideal is that college should be very expensive for rich people and cheap, free, or at least more affordable, for less wealthy people. Dunno where you got this "ideal". the days of outrageous student debt are thankfully fading away ..."fading away", to the tune of (at last glance ) one and three quarters of a trillion dollars in outstanding student loan debt. it would make more sense to do this redistribution through taxes if possible The ability of US higher ed to raise tuition prices will always overwhelm the ability of US taxpayers to meet those prices. The phrase "utility monster" comes to mind. but many US institutions are private so that doesn’t really work. Private, in the sense that nobody who answers to someone who must win an election is directly in charge of running them, but, who operate as charities for the purpose of donations, pay no taxes on either capital gains or real estate, and are permitted to act as government contractors skimming up to 85% of grant money they're tasked with administrating. so the colleges basically have their own privately-run means testing programs, and like all such programs there are flaws and loopholes. The flaw being that...the school is allowed to have total knowledge of a customer's ability to pay before it chooses to do business with them. Imagine if you had to give three years of your tax returns to the person you were trying to buy a house from.
- baq 2y ago
  > Dunno where you got this "ideal". I wonder if people like you just lack the imagination or system thinking or equate poor with useless or are just afraid of thinking people? From the perspective of the state and the society it’s beneficial to have an educated population, unless you think you won’t have enough stupid people to man the factories?
  - linksnapzz 2y ago
    The track record over the past thirty years of sending more and more people to nominal "college" as "a way to have more thinking people" hasn't exactly done wonders, unless you're in the student loan servicing business.
    - baq 2y ago
throwaway2037 2y ago
> the ideal is that college should be very expensive for rich people and cheap, free, or at least more affordable, for less wealthy people. This is an excellent summary of the Harvard University tuition strategy for the last 20 years.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  But this strategy only applies to the wealthy universities, like Harvard, which are extremely difficult to get into -- and that is by design (Harvard could expand its student body), since what Harvard is selling these days, above all, is exclusivity.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
> the ideal is that college should be very expensive for rich people and cheap, free, or at least more affordable, for less wealthy people. american universities get closer to this ideal than you might expect. the days of outrageous student debt are thankfully fading away, at least for undergraduate degrees. this is partly true. it is cheap / free for very low income -- if you qualify for a Pell grant you can usually get additional financial aid from your state university that can bring your cost down to zero. But if you are above the low income line, but by no means wealthy -- so if you're a household making say $100K a year, then college is extremely expensive and unaffordable especially if you have several kids. You're not poor enough to qualify for substantial financial aid, and you're not wealthy enough to afford tuition. Yeah, your kid can get into Harvard or Stanford for free, but the chances of them being accepted are vanishingly small no matter how smart they are. The saving grace is community college -- enroll at the local CC for 2 years and then transfer to the state school.

hooo 2y ago

Why should college be very expensive for rich people?

analog31 2y ago
According to the old story, the New York Times asked a famous bank robber why he robbed banks. The answer: Because that's where the money is. The money for funding public and quasi-private (universities and hospitals) institutions has to come from somewhere. Making it equally affordable for everybody doesn't raise enough money to maintain operations. Same for funding the government. Granted, I think all of those institutions are due for reforms, which have little chance of happening right now, but still, I think the basic funding equation can't be eliminated.
- estebank 2y ago
  > The money for funding public and quasi-private (universities and hospitals) institutions has to come from somewhere. Making it equally affordable for everybody doesn't raise enough money to maintain operations. Same for funding the government. That's what taxes are for: you take proportionally more from people with more assets. I find the entire conversation about "not wanting my tax dollars to pay for some millionaire's kids' education", because those millionaires would end up paying the difference in taxes (under a fair system) than they do now. That's without even considering the perverse incentives at play when a wealthy parent can use the payment or withholding of payment for education as a way to control their kids. Just because a parent is wealthy it doesn't necessarily mean that the kid would have access to those funds, or that explicit or implicit requirements that could be imposed to access those funds would be reasonable.
  - analog31 2y ago
    Indeed, and I think we're not far apart on this. I would support funding of things like education and healthcare through progressive taxation, and making them free, or some nominal cost.
wesselbindt 2y ago
Because they can afford it. It's a redistribution tactic. You can also phrase it like this: college should be free for all to attend. Then, as long as you have a progressive tax scheme, the outcome is the same. Cheap for the poor, expensive for the rich.
- hooo 2y ago
  Then are you suggesting buying anything should work like this?
  - wesselbindt 2y ago
    Not at all. But in markets with inelastic demand, I'd say this is probably the way to go.
  - baq 2y ago
    Are you suggesting education is like potatoes?
    - ponector 2y ago
      I would say it is more a service, like a massage or a week in a resort hotel.
      - baq 2y ago
        If you are an education provider, yes. If you are receiving education, I'd say it's totally different due to expected value added over the student lifetime.
      - 1dontknow_ 2y ago
        Like a massage? You can't be serious. I would consider it a basic service like healthcare, power, or water, so it should be easily accessible, have certain quality standards and very affordable, basically a decision to go there shouldn't have any financial impact.. but surely that's ideal.

linksnapzz 2y ago

the ideal is that college should be very expensive for rich people and cheap, free, or at least more affordable, for less wealthy people. Dunno where you got this "ideal". the days of outrageous student debt are thankfully fading away ..."fading away", to the tune of (at last glance ) one and three quarters of a trillion dollars in outstanding student loan debt. it would make more sense to do this redistribution through taxes if possible The ability of US higher ed to raise tuition prices will always overwhelm the ability of US taxpayers to meet those prices. The phrase "utility monster" comes to mind. but many US institutions are private so that doesn’t really work. Private, in the sense that nobody who answers to someone who must win an election is directly in charge of running them, but, who operate as charities for the purpose of donations, pay no taxes on either capital gains or real estate, and are permitted to act as government contractors skimming up to 85% of grant money they're tasked with administrating. so the colleges basically have their own privately-run means testing programs, and like all such programs there are flaws and loopholes. The flaw being that...the school is allowed to have total knowledge of a customer's ability to pay before it chooses to do business with them. Imagine if you had to give three years of your tax returns to the person you were trying to buy a house from.

baq 2y ago
> Dunno where you got this "ideal". I wonder if people like you just lack the imagination or system thinking or equate poor with useless or are just afraid of thinking people? From the perspective of the state and the society it’s beneficial to have an educated population, unless you think you won’t have enough stupid people to man the factories?
- linksnapzz 2y ago
  The track record over the past thirty years of sending more and more people to nominal "college" as "a way to have more thinking people" hasn't exactly done wonders, unless you're in the student loan servicing business.
  - baq 2y ago

throwaway2037 2y ago

> the ideal is that college should be very expensive for rich people and cheap, free, or at least more affordable, for less wealthy people. This is an excellent summary of the Harvard University tuition strategy for the last 20 years.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
But this strategy only applies to the wealthy universities, like Harvard, which are extremely difficult to get into -- and that is by design (Harvard could expand its student body), since what Harvard is selling these days, above all, is exclusivity.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

> the ideal is that college should be very expensive for rich people and cheap, free, or at least more affordable, for less wealthy people. american universities get closer to this ideal than you might expect. the days of outrageous student debt are thankfully fading away, at least for undergraduate degrees. this is partly true. it is cheap / free for very low income -- if you qualify for a Pell grant you can usually get additional financial aid from your state university that can bring your cost down to zero. But if you are above the low income line, but by no means wealthy -- so if you're a household making say $100K a year, then college is extremely expensive and unaffordable especially if you have several kids. You're not poor enough to qualify for substantial financial aid, and you're not wealthy enough to afford tuition. Yeah, your kid can get into Harvard or Stanford for free, but the chances of them being accepted are vanishingly small no matter how smart they are. The saving grace is community college -- enroll at the local CC for 2 years and then transfer to the state school.