<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously the money would come from the subsidies being provided to instate college students who are currently attending public universities. Hence, instead of subsidizing the school, you would be subsidizing * the student*. The school could then in turn charge every student the same price, whether instate or OOS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I agree that Ox-Bridge could also similarly surely charge millions per seat on the open market and fill every seat with the children of the world’s filthy rich. </p>
<p>But on the other hand, Ox-bridge are public universities, at least nominally, and therefore subject to the diktats of the British government. But Harvard is a private university and, in theory, can do whatever it wants. If Oxbridge can’t or won’t sell its seats to the world’s rich, Harvard could snatch the opportunity.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I think we all know that Harvard (and other top schools) do so right now. They just do so under the table. Let’s be perfectly honest: if a rich family were to offer Harvard a large donation - say 8+ figures - that family’s child is going to enjoy vastly improved admissions odds. That’s essentially the sale of an admissions seat. And let’s not be naive: people are surely being admitted to Harvard via this pathway right now. It’s just that nobody talks about it openly.</p>
<p>That has worked so well in Charter schools.</p>
<p>[Education</a> Justice News - Charter School Achievement: Hype vs. Evidence](<a href=“http://www.educationjustice.org/newsletters/nlej_iss21_art5_detail_CharterSchoolAchievement.htm]Education”>http://www.educationjustice.org/newsletters/nlej_iss21_art5_detail_CharterSchoolAchievement.htm)</p>
<p>The fact is there is also a great public interest in keeping their educational capital in the state as most tend to stay where they go to college. Not to mention having the basic college with a stable income base allows it to do many other things that also help the state. Public colleges serve both the student AND the public interest of the state.</p>
<p>As I said, legally H cannot do as it pleases and keep non-profit status. This is a silly discussion taken to an absurd extreme. The super rich are not that interested in some crummy college degree. Even from H. They play life at a much higher level and give their kids companies to run–not useless degrees.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hey, I didn’t say anything about a Harvard degree making anybody whole. By the same logic, I’m not sure why even owning a single Rolls Royce would ‘make you whole’, let alone owning 600 of them. {What, so the 599th Rolls Royce was insufficient, you had to buy the 600th one?} I don’t understand why anybody would need a gold-plated sink in his private jet. I certainly don’t understand why anybody would need a billion dollar yacht with its own missile-defense system and a getaway microsubmarine, unless you happen to be a James Bond movie supervillain. </p>
<p>But what can I say? Rich people buy that stuff. And they pay millions for the privilege. So is it really so outrageous to think that rich people wouldn’t also pay millions for a Harvard degree? These people clearly don’t care about money, for they have so much of it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But like I said, Harvard is doing it now. They’re just doing so quietly. I think we all know that some kids are quietly being admitted to Harvard just because their families made some very large donations. One would have to be quite naive to think that this isn’t happening. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, is that so? So then why do many of the super-rich and super-elite in fact try to send their children to elite-branded colleges at all, whether from Harvard, Oxbridge, or wherever? </p>
<p>To give you a case in point, the daughter of billionaire NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg recently graduated from Harvard (joint degrees from Harvard Business School and the Harvard Kennedy School to be exact). The daughter of Xi Jinping, who is the presumptive heir apparent of the leadership of China, is studying at Harvard right now. Heck, how exactly did George W. Bush get into Harvard Business School, despite freely admitting to being an irresponsible and alcohol-besotted cad until his 40’s?</p>
<p>
There’s no way they are subsidizing students to the tune of $20K+ per year. If they were, the school would effectively already be getting out of statue tuition from everyone, the prof would have his pay raise, and this article would never have been written.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair enough, then one reasonable restriction of the voucher might be that the only eligible colleges - whether public or private - must be located within that particular state. For example, I’m sure that the (private)U of Denver provides important economic benefits to the state of Colorado, so why not subsidize state residents who want to attend that school? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Such as what? Specifically, what does that basic (public) college provide to the state that private universities do not provide? Last time I checked, Harvard and MIT provided tremendous benefits - and indeed are foundational pillars - of the economy and intellectual fabric of the state of Massachusetts. Many Governors of Massachusetts, including the current one, are Harvard graduates, much of the high-tech industry around Highway 128 is was fostered by MIT (along with Harvard-trained venture capital).</p>
<p>Sakky, you are just be silly. There are very real limits on non-profits and money. I am sure there are some very bright rich kids at Harvard. Does not mean they can charge anything they want to all. See the Boys Town case.</p>
<p>[The</a> Snowball: Warren Buffett and the … - Google Books](<a href=“The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life - Alice Schroeder - Google Books”>The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life - Alice Schroeder - Google Books)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that it’s not $20k a year. It’s probably more like $7k a year. After all, the author proposed that instate tuitions should rise from the (currently subsidized) $7k a year to an unsubsidized rate of $14k a year, indicating that the subsidy is about $7k a year.</p>
<p>Well, there is no Harvard or MIT in many of the Midwest states with major state Us and they have filled that role with great success. UW Madison generates over $12 Billion in economic activity for the state. That with only $450 Million in state money. Even the Boston papers printed the story.</p>
<p>[Study:</a> UW-Madison chips in $12B to Wis. economy - Boston.com](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2011/03/30/study_uw_madison_chips_in_12b_to_wis_economy/]Study:”>http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2011/03/30/study_uw_madison_chips_in_12b_to_wis_economy/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Barrons, now you are just being silly. Sure, there are some limits to what nonprofits can do - but clearly those limits are not highly exacting. Are there some rich but bright kids at Harvard? Of course. On the other hand, there are also some rich, not-so-bright kids at Harvard. </p>
<p>More to the point, are you seriously proposing that Harvard admissions are completely meritocratic? That large family donations truly have no influence on admissions whatsoever? If so, then I am afraid that you are truly being naive and silly. </p>
<p>Your Boys Town case has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand; the case had to do with the obligations of a nonprofit to manage the money that it has. But it says nothing about who a nonprofit university might choose to admit. If Harvard chooses to provide strong admissions preference to children of elites such as George W. Bush or to the children of Al Gore (as surely happened as all four of them were ‘coincidentally’ admitted to Harvard), they can and will do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Illinois is a midwest state with a major state university. Nevertheless, I don’t think that anybody would dispute that UChicago and Northwestern have been key supporters of the economy of the state of Illinois. Heck, the current Governor of Illinois is a graduate of Northwestern.</p>
<p>But this is all a detour from the main point. I never claimed that public universities don’t contribute to the economy of a particular state. What I said is that public and private universities both contribute. Hence, it’s not entirely clear why state tuition subsidies should be directed only to public universities. If an Illinois state resident wanted to study at UChicago or Northwestern, why shouldn’t the state of Illinois provide him with a state subsidy? Why does he receive that subsidy only if he attends UIUC or another public Illinois school?</p>
<p>It might actually make sense to provide public subsidies for private schools, if you can keep the for-profit schools out of the picture and limit it to 4 year, accredited degree-granting schools.</p>
<p>The problem is that you would see tons of new private for-profit schools springing up whose main function is to separate students from their subsidies and line their own pockets. You see that already with Pells - follow where that money goes and check the graduation rates and loan default rates. It would be a disaster.</p>
<p>
The only sure thing that subsidies accomplish is less fiscal responsibility. You’ll suddenly have more overpaid administrators with more vague responsibilities. And being non-profit doesn’t automatically make an organization any more noble in their mission. The ones in charge have as much as an incentive and opportunity to put their hands in the cookie jar as those in for profit organizations.</p>
<p>MANY as in not all as in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Iowa. Don’t be a jackass. And how many kids are NU and UC going to accept with that big $8,000 or so voucher anyway? UI has about 50,000 instate undergrad students between UIUC and UIC. I don’t see UC and NU taking more than a few hundred per year at most. What about the kids with a 3.75 and JUST a 29 on the ACT. NU and UC won’t want them. The idea is absurd and unworkable at so many levels.</p>
<p>“They also have social goals which fits with their non-profit charter.”</p>
<p>Their social goal, as expressed in their own financials, is to provide subsidies to millionaires. Totally legal of course, and legit. Since “everyone” does it, they don’t have to worry about their status. And they do, in their wonderfully need-blind systems, auction off a certain number of seats to high bidders.</p>