5 ms·

If you reduce the choice to public funding vs wealthy alumni stewardship, and there seems to be no meaningful pathway to circumventing the current assault on pu

If you reduce the choice to public funding vs wealthy alumni stewardship, and there seems to be no meaningful pathway to circumventing the current assault on public funding, then why should you alienate your wealthy alumni? Obviously the situation is much more complex and nuanced, but this framing (amongst others I’m sure) seems appropriate if you are thinking on a 25,50,100 year time scale in terms of impact of your decision. The country is littered with public and private universities who made poor moral choices across the 19th and 20th centuries but I’m not aware of any institutions suffering long-term reputational harm (or threat of insolvency) as a result of those choices. (Then again, maybe it’s because the harm was swift and final at the time)

downrightmike 1y ago
The poor choices started in the early 90's when the SCOTUS decided that MIT didn't have to pay taxes as long as they gave enough charity discounts to students. Everyone else jumped on it and abused the student loan system by jacking up tuition and then applying charity grants to basically all students. Leading to our current Student Loan crisis.
- blackguardx 1y ago
  This is the first time I've seen this framing. Typically folks blame bloated admin and fancy dorms. Where can I learn more about this take on the student loan crisis.
  - adastra22 1y ago
    Those are not incompatible statements.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    The loan (and hence tuition) crisis is because US taxpayers provide blank checks to students with no underwriting.
- runako 1y ago
  As I understand matters, it started in the 70s and 80s as states pulled back from funding public institutions. This funding was the mechanism which allowed public institutions to be affordable to families such that a person could pay for a year of public college by working in a grocery store over the summer. MIT + the more expensive private colleges are effectively a rounding error in terms of number of students matriculating, but they do play in the same market and will price accordingly. But the big driver of what they can get away with is that a college like University of Tennessee is $35,000 annually, for a total ticket likely north of $150k. (Not picking on them, just chose a state at random.) Worth noting that this is a deliberate political choice. At any time, a state could choose to return to subsidizing in-state college at its public institutions, perhaps in exchange for working in the state after graduation.
  - mixdup 1y ago
    >As I understand matters, it started in the 70s and 80s as states pulled back from funding public institutions. Yes, absolutely this, and accelerating heavily in the late 00s after the financial crisis. In some states, especially for non-flagship universities, you can overlay the decrease in state funding and tuition increases and they're nearly the same line Tuition explosion isn't all just the proliferation of assistant deans and VPs (although that is a problem, too), a huge portion of it is that public higher education is essentially public in name only these days
  - lxm 1y ago
    Does subsidizing lower the cost, or just mask it by having it covered from a different wallet, e.g. robbing Peter to pay Paul? What stops the higher ed players from regulatory capture of the state agency in charge of those subsidies and milking that cow for all it's got?
    - runako 1y ago
      > What stops the higher ed players from regulatory capture of the state agency in charge of those subsidies and milking that cow for all it's got? Yes, you are correct that a corrupt state will deliver poor results. A key bulwark against in many places is effective oversight of public assets and administrations. But a corrupt state also could do much worse than $35k for undergraduate tuition. Which suggests priorities are being set to accomplish a different set of goals. Also keep in mind that the primary mechanism here is not adding regulation. Rather, it's about things like ensuring universities have enough open slots for the children matriculating through their K-12 programs. Think about it more in the way states are generally capable of managing and subsidizing/funding student education at the K-12 level. Bigger picture: consider why it should even be seen to be such a massive difference in capability for a state to run a public education program for the 4 years after high school vs the first 13 years.
itkovian_ 1y ago
These are some of the richest entities - forget about universities - just entities full stop, in the entire country.
- adastra22 1y ago
  Stanford’s endowment is less than $40bn.
  - Retric 1y ago
    That’s a lot of money on tap, 99.99% of US organizations have less than $1Bn in reserves. Even among educational institutions there’s a 19+k private schools and 5,300 universities in the US. The vast majority of them don’t operate anywhere close to that scale.
    - s1artibartfast 1y ago
      Consider adding for or five more 9s to that. There are 50+ million corporations in the county, and then you need to add all the churches, clubs and nonprofits.
      - Retric 1y ago
        My 4 nines + your 4 or 5 nines = 1 in 100 million to 1 in 1 billion. Even adding all the churches, clubs, and nonprofits I don’t think it’s that rare. The Mormon church for example has ~293 billion in assets. Even the Church of Scientology is apparently worth ~2 billion.
        s1artibartfast 1y ago
        Maybe 1 in 10 million? What do you think the numerator in denominator are here? I'm guessing less than a hundred organizations with a billion dollars in reserve. There are less than 2,000 us companies with a billion dollar market cap, out of ~40 million companies. I expect the reserves would be a substantially less than that. Maybe somewhere in the ballpark of low triple digit organizations with a billion+ dollar reserve. Maybe 200 nationally?

downrightmike 1y ago

The poor choices started in the early 90's when the SCOTUS decided that MIT didn't have to pay taxes as long as they gave enough charity discounts to students. Everyone else jumped on it and abused the student loan system by jacking up tuition and then applying charity grants to basically all students. Leading to our current Student Loan crisis.

blackguardx 1y ago
This is the first time I've seen this framing. Typically folks blame bloated admin and fancy dorms. Where can I learn more about this take on the student loan crisis.
- adastra22 1y ago
  Those are not incompatible statements.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  The loan (and hence tuition) crisis is because US taxpayers provide blank checks to students with no underwriting.
runako 1y ago
As I understand matters, it started in the 70s and 80s as states pulled back from funding public institutions. This funding was the mechanism which allowed public institutions to be affordable to families such that a person could pay for a year of public college by working in a grocery store over the summer. MIT + the more expensive private colleges are effectively a rounding error in terms of number of students matriculating, but they do play in the same market and will price accordingly. But the big driver of what they can get away with is that a college like University of Tennessee is $35,000 annually, for a total ticket likely north of $150k. (Not picking on them, just chose a state at random.) Worth noting that this is a deliberate political choice. At any time, a state could choose to return to subsidizing in-state college at its public institutions, perhaps in exchange for working in the state after graduation.
- mixdup 1y ago
  >As I understand matters, it started in the 70s and 80s as states pulled back from funding public institutions. Yes, absolutely this, and accelerating heavily in the late 00s after the financial crisis. In some states, especially for non-flagship universities, you can overlay the decrease in state funding and tuition increases and they're nearly the same line Tuition explosion isn't all just the proliferation of assistant deans and VPs (although that is a problem, too), a huge portion of it is that public higher education is essentially public in name only these days
- lxm 1y ago
  Does subsidizing lower the cost, or just mask it by having it covered from a different wallet, e.g. robbing Peter to pay Paul? What stops the higher ed players from regulatory capture of the state agency in charge of those subsidies and milking that cow for all it's got?
  - runako 1y ago
    > What stops the higher ed players from regulatory capture of the state agency in charge of those subsidies and milking that cow for all it's got? Yes, you are correct that a corrupt state will deliver poor results. A key bulwark against in many places is effective oversight of public assets and administrations. But a corrupt state also could do much worse than $35k for undergraduate tuition. Which suggests priorities are being set to accomplish a different set of goals. Also keep in mind that the primary mechanism here is not adding regulation. Rather, it's about things like ensuring universities have enough open slots for the children matriculating through their K-12 programs. Think about it more in the way states are generally capable of managing and subsidizing/funding student education at the K-12 level. Bigger picture: consider why it should even be seen to be such a massive difference in capability for a state to run a public education program for the 4 years after high school vs the first 13 years.

itkovian_ 1y ago

These are some of the richest entities - forget about universities - just entities full stop, in the entire country.

adastra22 1y ago
Stanford’s endowment is less than $40bn.
- Retric 1y ago
  That’s a lot of money on tap, 99.99% of US organizations have less than $1Bn in reserves. Even among educational institutions there’s a 19+k private schools and 5,300 universities in the US. The vast majority of them don’t operate anywhere close to that scale.
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    Consider adding for or five more 9s to that. There are 50+ million corporations in the county, and then you need to add all the churches, clubs and nonprofits.
    - Retric 1y ago
      My 4 nines + your 4 or 5 nines = 1 in 100 million to 1 in 1 billion. Even adding all the churches, clubs, and nonprofits I don’t think it’s that rare. The Mormon church for example has ~293 billion in assets. Even the Church of Scientology is apparently worth ~2 billion.
      - s1artibartfast 1y ago
        Maybe 1 in 10 million? What do you think the numerator in denominator are here? I'm guessing less than a hundred organizations with a billion dollars in reserve. There are less than 2,000 us companies with a billion dollar market cap, out of ~40 million companies. I expect the reserves would be a substantially less than that. Maybe somewhere in the ballpark of low triple digit organizations with a billion+ dollar reserve. Maybe 200 nationally?