College Discussion - View Single Post

mini · 05-10-2008, 09:54 AM

I'm of mixed minds about this one. I take it as a given that politicians pander. I take it as further given that endowments often have a substantial portion of earmarked funds. And (the kicker), that politicians don't have higher education for the citizenry as their top priority almost goes without saying.

However, my alma mater (one of those really rich places - the one with the indoor golf nets) claims that they spend $72k per student per year (it's higher now), but only charge a maximum of $47k. In other words, they provide a $100k subsidy over four years to students receiving NO financial aid. It is likely that almost half of them could actually afford $72k or something close to it (and hence provide more financial assistance to those who can't afford it.) A substantial portion come from millionaire or multimillionaire families. It is hard to make an argument that the state has an interest (or that I do, with my measly alumni contribution) in subsidizing the millionaire's kids - especially when they'd likely be quite sanguine about paying for what the education of their children actually costs.

If Amherst is relying on their endowment for 1/3 of their annual spending, the simple reply is that they don't have to. They have made a choice to subsidize the millionaires. All they have to do is charge what the product costs, and then subsidize those who can't afford it.

05-10-2008, 09:54 AM	#5
mini Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Olympia, WA Posts: 8,482	I'm of mixed minds about this one. I take it as a given that politicians pander. I take it as further given that endowments often have a substantial portion of earmarked funds. And (the kicker), that politicians don't have higher education for the citizenry as their top priority almost goes without saying. However, my alma mater (one of those really rich places - the one with the indoor golf nets) claims that they spend $72k per student per year (it's higher now), but only charge a maximum of $47k. In other words, they provide a $100k subsidy over four years to students receiving NO financial aid. It is likely that almost half of them could actually afford $72k or something close to it (and hence provide more financial assistance to those who can't afford it.) A substantial portion come from millionaire or multimillionaire families. It is hard to make an argument that the state has an interest (or that I do, with my measly alumni contribution) in subsidizing the millionaire's kids - especially when they'd likely be quite sanguine about paying for what the education of their children actually costs. If Amherst is relying on their endowment for 1/3 of their annual spending, the simple reply is that they don't have to. They have made a choice to subsidize the millionaires. All they have to do is charge what the product costs, and then subsidize those who can't afford it. Last edited by mini; 05-10-2008 at 10:09 AM.