Slashdot Mirror

A larger fraction of the US population has college degrees than in most other industrialized nations.

Source please?
According to higheredinfo.org the US looks to be #13 out of 30. That's pretty close to the middle; not bad, but not representative of your statement.

Naw, I'm not in NY - they just happened to have figures I could find. It looks like NY gives about $15k to the state schools per student if I am reading this type of information correctly:

http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=36#

All schools get donations but MIT has done a lot better than the rest. This suggests that MIT is better at allocating money than other mediocre schools. So from a perfectly rational perspective giving money to the most effective organization makes a lot of sense.

Actually, it suggests that MIT is better at fundraising than "other mediocre schools". Granted, it might be easier to raise funds if you allocate your money "better", but it does not seem completely obvious to me that the original poster's goal was to give money to institution with the most effective fundraising organization. I suspect they were hoping to have the largest positive benefit to the largest number of individuals - probably in the educational field. If that is the case, university education is probably not the most effective use of resources. With a national high school graduation rate of something like 70% - probably the best thing to do is to try to address the front end of the educational pipe with elementary and secondary school initiatives.

http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=23

But what do I know?

My understanding was that it is not true that any of these places are "cheap" for anyone - they just strive to make their take as much as the student can be bled for. If they charge only what the applicant can "afford to pay", and the students or families are left with significant loans needing repayment after the fact than that hardly seems "cheap". OK, I guess for someone like Bill Gates, their sliding price scale doesn't reach up high enough to really make it painful, but if you cannot afford "full price" they are willing to drop the price just enough that you can pay it, but no lower.

I suppose there is nothing really unethical about setting their tuition price at whatever level they want. The 1991 "price fixing" lawsuit did not make them out to be completely above board though.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=ivy+league+price+fixing

One of the interesting things is a study a decade or so ago (find it yourself) that showed that people accepted to one of the "top tier" schools who instead when to pretty much any place else, were as "successful" as those who went to the top tier school. The conclusion was that the top tier graduates were better not because of the school, but rather the school was selecting exceptional people, who on average, would have exceptional outcomes if they went somewhere cheaper too. There are some amazing people and amazing opportunities at "Top Tier U", no doubt. There are also amazing people and opportunities at "Springfield State School" as well - and graduates of good ole SSS spend considerably less money in meeting them. The rational economic argument probably precludes attending TTU over SSS.

If you look at the various endowments per student level, it does seem a bit strange that a place like Princeton which has almost $2 million dollars for EACH STUDENT in the bank, finds that it needs to charge more than state schools which seem to get only as much as $15k per student support from the state. Surely Princeton is managing to get better than $15k from that $2million? Heck a 1% return is $20k!

http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=36#

SUNY Cortland wants something like $5k in tuition, and only expects someone to spend $22k for tuition, fees, room, board, books, etc. Princeton wants $37k for just tuition, and estimates that it will be over $52k for room, board, fees, etc.

http://www2.cortland.edu/cost-aid/student-accounts-office/tuition-and-costs/
http://www.princeton.edu/admission/financialaid/cost/

People can spend a lot of time discussing the question of whether or not the extra $30,000 PER YEAR for Princeton is "worth it", but the question in my mind is why does Princeton charge the premium at all? I can see why they can charge it (people think it is worth that much) but what is their reasoning behind setting the particular price that they do? Isn't their non-profit mandate something like "making the world better by educating lots of people real good"? Are they spending that extra 30k (plus whatever their $2million investments are bringing in) on things that they think do that? Are they wasting money on things that don't really help that goal much? Too many middle managers? Too many janitors? Does SUNY just spend its money way more efficiently? Regardless of whether or not Princeton students are getting $30k more value than SUNY students, does Princeton actually spend $30k (plus endowment monies) more on each student when providing them with services?

What is wrong with the university system is because we've screwed up our high school system to pretty much let -everyone- graduate, a diploma now means nothing.

Not true. The average U.S. high school graduation rate is only 69% (Source: HigherEdInfo.org). It's as low as 50% in some states. Maybe you're distinguishing between those kids that schools "let" graduate and those students that choose not to graduate. But either way, not everybody has a high school diploma.

hah...hahhahahaha! seriously?

Barely more than half of college enrollees finish a bachelor's degree after 6 years.* You're just proving my point about cherry picking. And talk about throwing money at the problem, it costs over $17k in tuition per student per year for a 4-year public university.**

* http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?level=nation&mode=graph&state=0&submeasure=27
** http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/paying-for-college/2008/04/10/how-much-does-college-cost.html