Private Universities Should Stop Wealth-Hoarding and Share

Yes, spending other people’s money is easy…but, Until we can implement a better system…

What ppl are saying is that hoarding results in complete FA for a very select few headed to a very select few Uni’s. And great for them, but then we become like other countries, where you either are one of the chosen few or have connections/money. Otherwise: no college for you:(

That just doesn’t seem right. I’d rather the $65k in aid go to 3 kids going to state Us, with the federal loan, they can do it. We routinely tell kids with rich parents who won’t pay: you don’t have to go to an expensive school…why not tell the needy kids that too? The State Us would become much more competitive and in some states, much better. Maybe the cost of privates would even come down? I’m dreaming of course!!

@Pizzagirl, the government is supporting Johns Hopkins.
I am glad the government is supporting the reaearch at Johns Hopkins.
You like to argue.

HRS- total straw man argument. I am in total agreement that the price of public college is completely out of whack… but there are very few places in America where a kid cannot get a college education. It is NOTHING like Europe or other parts of the world where a couple of tests taken in 7th grade determine if you are on track for university or trade school or manual labor.

Nothing like that. A kid may need to start at community college and commute- that model doesn’t exist in parts of the world. A kid may need to be on the 6 year plan and toggle between work and school. A kid may need to get a job at a company which has tuition benefits. But a motivated, college bound kid cannot use the “we can’t afford it” excuse. Worst case- work until you are no longer considered part of your parents economic unit- and qualify for need based aid.

You are making an unfair comparison here. I think that private universities can charge whatever they want… and when they can’t fill their seats (Sweet Briar being a recent example) they need to rethink their mission and retool their value proposition.

Public universities are in an arms race with each other over non-instructional spending and as a taxpayer, this offends me far more than a private U managing its endowment with growth in mind. Public U’s decide they want a fancy new basketball arena- who cares about the labs or the libraries or the fact that we’re swapping tenured faculty positions with poorly paid adjuncts.

THIS is the problem. Not that a poor kid can go to Yale for free. I feel for the waitress at the Waffle House whose state taxes go to pay for a university that she can’t afford for her kids. That’s where the outrage should be- not on an endowment manager who is doing what he/she gets paid to do- save the corpus for the next generation, and use growth and capital gains to both expand the size of the endowment, and to plug money into the causes, departments, and programs that the original donor specified.

Why does my flagship have a gorgeous sports arena and a sub-par CS lab? And why do the voters put up with it? Because we value winning sports teams more than we do access to higher education for kids of modest means. Well- ok. The people (voters) have spoken.

I’m not a debater, so straw men and ad hominem sand the like are lost on me;). More from an emotional standpoint, I just wish more kids got more aid. Involving the govt is probably a bad choice. But there must be a better way.

Well… As a society, We could decide to let the wealthiest people decide how to fund higher education. They know what’s best. And we can support the wealthiest people’s decisions by giving them taxpayer support.

Oh wait… We kind of do that already.
And the wealthiest people have decided about 10-40 schools should have the vast majority of the money they hand out.

And people who are associated with the 10-40 schools are pretty happy about this. :slight_smile:

Then the schools that don’t get the gifts are trashed. :slight_smile:

And students can go to schools for 6 years because there is no cost in that.
Loans are aid. I think they are similar to grants. :slight_smile:

You’re going to claim that Berkeley is suffering because it’s a public institution? UVA? How are they being trashed???

You sure like a vivid turn of phrase whether or not it’s accurate…

@blossom,

Berkeley and UVA are in the 10-40 schools I mentioned. A few public schools get help.

I posted a list of the 20 universities that receive the most charitable contributions. Berkeley is on the list.
I post many links to back up what I say.

Trashed? That’s neither sarcastic nor trashed.

You are claiming that only the 10-40 universities in your previous post are adequately funded?

Over and out. You have a shaky grip on reality.

I never said that only the 10-40 universities mentioned in my previous are adequately funded.

Just for the record. :slight_smile:

@HRSMom
A lot of state universities don’t offer adequate funding for extremely needy, Pell-qualifying students.

But that is my whole point! With one full private FA package, 3 kids could get near full FA at a public if all aid was shared or pooled somehow…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2014/07/30/22-richest-schools-in-america/#631c093f5e3c

And this is a problem because …

There is a tremendous amount of oversight and administrative expense involved in “government giving”, so it’s not totally free money. This expense isn’t intrinsic to government, per se. An enlightened despot could move this money with as much dispatch as a Phil Knight donating his $400M to Stanford. That however is not the kind of government we have (or want). Our government employs bureaucrats overseeing bureaucrats who oversee bureaucrats. So more and more bureaucrats all get a cut, just because we don’t trust bureaucrats. It’s much more efficient to incentivize a smart, successful taxpayer (one little localized, enlightened despot) to donate directly to what in his or her judgment is the most worthy cause. A university then can spend that money with as few (or as many) strings attached as the donor desires. With “government giving”, a university may be up against limits to the period of performance, ceilings on various kinds of expenditures, site certification requirements, option years & recompetes, review by people with little expertise in the field, etc. etc. etc.

Philosophically, I agree with in your post 100%.

However, you add a bit more to my definition of free money than I meant, as all money implicitly has management costs, even the $1 given to the homeless person must be managed by that person. Thus, I took those management costs as implicit across the board - some are just more costly than others.

By free money, I meant money that is given not in exchange for services or a product to the giver and really are to advance the receiver’s assets. For the receiver that is free money because returning a successful product or service directly to the giver is not part of the transaction. Specifically, the receiver gets to keep all the money, resulting proceeds, and advancements, and the increased net worth, which flow from use of the money. That is what I meant by free money.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/14/david-rubenstein-and-the-carried-interest-dilemma

Sorry…the link is a little long…

A story about carried one of the biggest bs loopholes.

I am going to highlight a paragraph…

How does this article relate to Private Universities and Wealth Hoarding?

nevermind…

A large part of that is due to a combination of severe cuts to subsidies which were much more abundantly provided by federal, state, and local governments and large changes in society which resulted in a much greater proportion of the population attending college than before along with a rejection of extremely selective admissions(CCNY/CUNY before 1969) or wide-ranging mandated weed-out policies for academically unmotivated and/or under prepared students in public institutions with open-admission policies for in-state students.

It may also be a possible coincidence that this was also around the same time public K-12 funding started to get cut substantially to the point the deleterious effects of this neglect became quite apparent by the late '70s and 1980’s.

This issue didn’t really exist in public universities before the mid '70s because it was free or extremely nominal cost for in-state/in-city residents. And they were not all fall-back options as most are viewed nowadays.

For instance, when General Colin Powell opted to attend CCNY over NYU in the '50’s, that wasn’t only due to cost…but also because at the time he attended, CCNY was considered a much more academically elite institution than NYU*. And back then, it was free for city residents and nominal cost for everyone else.

The flipside, however, was either one risked being part of the substantial proportion(sometimes as high as 50%) of in-state students who were “weeded out” in an open admission system or if admission was selective, competition to get in was extremely keen as there were so many applicants in relation to available seats and the academic level set high enough that there was a bit of a “CCNY/CUNY or bust” attitude among many parents and academically high achieving students.

Especially those who were deterred from Ivies/elite private Us due to higher costs(no FA and not too many scholarships back then) and/or discriminatory admission policies (Strong disinclination by Ivy/peer private colleges in this period from admitting too many students who were Jewish, Eastern/Southern Europeans, and other “undesirables” who weren’t upper/upper-middle class and WASP in that period).

Incidentally, I faced the same issue when I was applying to colleges as it would have cost me more to attend my local public colleges right when they were at their nadir in terms of academic reputation/rigor. This was only confirmed when several HS classmates who started at a few local 4-year public colleges because of poor HS GPAs or parents who believed “all colleges are the same”*** ended up voting with their feet after a year or two by transferring out to elite private LACs/universities like Reed, CMU, and Columbia.

  • A few older friends and neighbors who attended NYU back then were quite frank about the fact they attended because they were rejected from CCNY/CUNY and that NYU was widely considered an academic safety for many tri-state area students during the '40s till the late '60s.

** And after the end of the '90s as well with the CUNY 4-year colleges when they started an initiative to move towards no longer directly admitting remedial students to the 4-year colleges.

*** The flipside to the Ivy/peer elite or bust mentality often discussed here on CC and IMO…equally nonsensical.