Slashdot Mirror
Let the College Price War Begin
Anonymous Coward writes "An article posted on cpnet.com describes a new site, eCollegebid.org, launched in September, which allows parents to bid the amount they wish to spend on one year of their child's collegiate education. Colleges, in return (having paid their $2000 fee), are then matched with these students' GPAs and test scores and can offer them admission, to which families have 30 days to respond .... priceline.com, eat your heart out."
I heard a radio headline several weeks ago that Priceline was patenting the reverse auction process which they use. Makes me want to patent stupid patenting processes.
Seems as though this is a good service for people who have to be price aware when they choose colleges. I guess people who have excellent grades are more likely to get a better deal... But perhaps that's a good thing.
I prefer the government funded universities of Europe (I have experiences from France and Sweden) where everyone gets a fair shot at getting their university education. They are at least not hindered by the amount of money on their parents' bank accounts.
Would someone care to explain how GPAs are calculated for those non-Americans among us? What's a typical/good value? Oh, and the same applies for SATs.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
I always wonder why you literally have to buy yourself a good education in the United States. Now do not flame me yet, I lived two years in that country and was lucky enough my parents lived in a rich suburb, making the schools rather good (though coming from europe it was easy to get good grades anyway). And I know there is a large scholarship system (larger than in germany) covering those exceptionally bright. But what about those mediocre intelligent, monetary poor people? Do they not at least deserve as good an education as those mediocre intelligent but monetary rich? Is intellectual elitism (as it has displayed it's face quite often on /.) really that strongly embedded or should the end of that pledge that they make you say in school rather be "with liberty, justice and education for all who have money" as I usually thought when I listened to that brainwash.
Back to college; after reading the article I get this feeling that going to school in the US is all about the money, that and nothing else. And this sort of scares me; if I'm not mistaken (which could very well be) this means, to a certain extend, that if you can't pay to go to a certain college you also do not have the options to follow the study which could be a very important factor for your future job. Instead you'd have to settle with something less which doesn't do much good for morale IMO.
Whether I got the facts straight or not I still prefer the 'European' (Dutch, since I'm from Holland) system. Social security; a lot of the expenses you have if your childeren goto school are paid by the goverment. First its social security; the parents receive a contribution to the costs their having in raising a child (this also contributes to the costs of education) and if the child is old enough (allways a very vague standard IMO) he/she receives the contribution, allthough things then start to work a bit different; part of the money is for the student to spend on education (which could also mean renting a room if they goto college in a different city) and the 2nd part is a loan which needs to be paid back after you're done with your education.
Like I said; its different and hard to compare offcourse. I'm sure that there are a few people allready thinking that everything comes for free over here. Well, thats not the case. Social security and all also means paying very much taxes, but IMHO its a very good way in making sure everyone has an option to study and make something of his live. I don't say this system allways works (who likes paying taxes?), but in most cases it does.
Yet again I'm so glad I live in Ireland where college education is partially state funded and everyone with ability has a chance.
I can see this system leading to people who are, to put it politely, thick as two short planks, getting ahead of those who are more deserving simply because of money.
How are colleges supposed to keep up a high standard of education when morons get in because mammy and daddy just happen to have money?
And those desperate to get their kids into a particular college will end up paying though the nose (more so than now).
A very sad state of affairs all said.
Obviously the impact of this program will depend totally on the support of colleges, and frankly I don't expect much. I fail to see what reason a major university would have to pay $2000 (even though it isn't much to them) for a "service" that will potentially reduce their profits from admission tuition. Besides, every school has a financial aid program set up for these exact purposes anyway, meaning the whole project is unnecessary. Also, the statements of the founder of the site make me very very skeptical about any potential of this program.
"he admits that state schools and private institutions like Princeton and Notre Dame wouldn't necessarily need eCollegebid"
Well um, weve already eliminated state schools and private colleges, which is like, what 99% of colleges? Seriously though, without any support from major universitys, the program will flop. Maybe a few students will be interested in a small scale, affordable school... but I think the majority of high school kids, especially the high achieving ones the program seeks, would rather want to go to Harvard, Duke, Stanford, or a state school rather than Bumblefuck University or Northwest Southern Central East Rhode Island College. And when the students see that their top choices are not offered on the site, they'll go back to mailing forms in.
"By the end of the year he hopes to have between 35 and 50 colleges active in the database"
35 to 50?????? THERE ARE MANY THOUSANDS OF COLLEGES OUT THERE!!!! What good would the program do if it only featured 1% of colleges? I realize the relative youth of the site, but nobody's gonna bother with such a limited choice.
Moreover, the fact that the founder refuses to list specific names disturbs me. We all know that if, say Yale, or even some random state school, were to take part in the program he would be shamelessly promoting it. "YES, EVEN TOP SCHOOLS LIKE YALE SUPPORT THE ECOLLEGEBID PROGRAM!" Instead, he's just hiding full information to cover up the glaring weakness of the site.
I'm afraid I have to agree with all the critics. However a novel idea, the site fails to show itself a worthy replacment of current financial aid programs. It's not going to attract any big name colleges, and in turn the limited selection of available schools on the site will completely turn off any prospective users. I'm sure it might help a few kids here and there find some quaint little backwoods college for a cheap price, but eCollegeBid won't make it in the long run.
Scores still go from 200 to 800 for each section, with 500 being the proverbial Average Student. The dumbing-down you speak of occured becuase the Average Student now would score a 460 or so - so they added a few points to our friend's score (and hence, everyone else's as well), bringing him back to 500.
--
Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this picture? Dare I say amoral? Yes, high tution fees are a fact of life, and anyone thinking you can go to school in the US no matter your parents' income is deluding himself. If you're looking for school gratuity, you have to look to more Left-leaning countries. Canada used to work that way, but it's slowly catching up to the US.
Anyway: my point is not to slam any nationality (far from it!), or get into a Leftist speech. What I want to point out is this:
The idea of parents bidding against one another is sick. Some college administrator realised that when you accepted a student, he was paying the same price as everyone else, when he probably could pay more. In other words, his family's wallet wasn't being siphoned for all it's worth.
It's unfair to say you won't get into a quality college because you lost a bid war. It's unfair to make parents pay maybe ten times the normal entry fee just because they can.
We're a long way from college gratuity, indeed... But it's no surprise, in a day when colleges seek corporate sponsoring and are constantly cut back on funds, that top colleges would begin placing more importance on money than on GPA's.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
If you go to the page it asks you for your SSN. Now, since that is not a secure page I do wonder if this is a scam, or if the guy running it just has no clue. You would not find me submitting my SSN like that or even using it for an ID.
;-)
I'd also want to know which colleges are participating before I'd consider using this service. Institutions like Lower Armpit Community College would not entice me.
"I knew it was going to be big... really big."
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
From this article doesn't appear to be what anyone else got. What I got out of the service was this: you put in what you can afford to spend, and ecollegebid gives you a list of universities that you can afford. Or that are willing to accept what you can afford. I, personally, think this is a great service. Of course, I also think you can get the same information from a good Financial Aid calculator and a copy of the Princeton Review. But then, maybe I'm wrong.
As to all the foreigners (and, apparently, americans) who don't seem to think anyone can get a university education in this country, I'd like to say, you are wrong. Governmental loans, school scholarships, grants - the funding is there if you want to go to school. And just because you're an A+ student whose parents work at McDonald's, doesn't mean you a) can't go to Yale or Harvard if you *really* want to, or b) are 'settling' if you go to UNC or Michigan State or UCLA. State schools often have better funding for those who can't afford it, and are less expensive to begin with - but they're not second best schools. I work for one of the big-name private universities, but I wouldn't want to go to school here. Yeah, the atmosphere is neat, but even with my tuition discount, I can get by cheaper at one of the other state schools in the area - and get a better education in the field that I'm interested in (which the private school doesn't even really offer to any degree!). So less expensive does not necessarily equate to worse. And I do believe that anyone who is motivated to get an education can find the money to do so.
I went to college in the US (here) and my parents paid themselves silly in order to send me there, but I believe that the US college system has certain advantages. You don't have to go to an expensive private school; there are many state schools that are very good and much more affordable. The big difference is though, that the (at least private) universities see themselves as a business, and such strive to provide the best service to their students, an attitude which in many European countries is unthinkable. Also, the fact that a US college has the right to ativeley choose who they accept, is something that we in Europe could learn from. I was surrounded by highly intelligent people in College (after the less motivated ones had flunked out); a very challenging and humblig experience that I truly value.
... I'm glad I went to college in the US even though it cost my parents a bundle ...
...
If you think private colleges rob you and take your last cent consider this: if you go to take a week of course work at a company (Oracle, IBM, etc), you will pay about $1500 per week. At that rate, even CMU was cheap and I learned more than I ever would though company coursework/education. Also, in my experience, people don't value what they don't pay for. This seems to be corroborated by what I see in the Austrian universites; they are overcrowded, underfunded
About this bidding system: I think it will only work out well for extremely gifted students, the kind of student that universities would like to get on their campus. If they see a lot of potential in you, they'll cut you a break (and throw in a nice scholarship), but what if you're not? What incentive do they have to make you a special offer? College tuituion is very public information anyways, I'm not sure how much sense bidding makes in this area. Do you really believe that through this system, there will be radical savings for the students. It's not like MIT will let you attend at $1000 per semester just because that's what you bid
I agree with the original poster, that the educationaly system here in the U.S. favors the wealthy. I personally believe that the system goes on to contribute to keeping the classes separate.
People often refer to scholarships as "leveling the ground" since poor people with acedemic potential can go to college. However, let's take two average people differing only in how rich the family is, not exactly wonderful GPAs or SAT scores, but not bad either. In this case the family that can afford it can send their child to college, the one that can't doesn't get a scholarship and so their child can't go to college.
Overall this means that given two people of the same acedemic level, the wealthy person is favored. Overall, the educational system favors the exceptional acedemics and the financially sound mediocraty. What happens in actuallity is that poorer smarter/more determined/(insert reason for having higher GPA/SAT) people cannnot go on to college over a richer, less highly scored person.
Just another cost of living in capitalism.
-no broken link
I went to a private school, and am now paying loans out of my ass.
However, I think the extra money was worth the attention I got at a smaller school. Although it would have been nice to price shop for schools, I pretty much figured out where I wanted to go, and then made the finanial aspect work.
I am curious, what is the consensus here:
Private or public colleges?
Yes, brothers, we are seeing the decline of merit-based success. We nerds/geeks have a tradition of striving for excellence in academia w/ only our intellect. Now, it seems that lusers w/ money are able to [more blatantly] buy their way to success. Yesterday, it was that WWN article, now this. WE are being persecuted! WE must rise to combat this! To arms my brothers! To arms!
I spent $50,000 on 2 years of education at a private school. It did nothing for me. I woke up, finally, and dropped out.
Now I'm making more in a year than what I spent for those 2 years in college...and I'm doing what I love to do.
College degrees aren't a requirement for geeks. They help, but they don't guarantee you a job. Certification and experience actually help more.
My advice? If it's too expensive, don't put yourself or your family in debt. Just don't go. Work your ass off, get some experience, and in a couple years it *will* pay off.
I'm surprised anyone is comparing this to Priceline. The college admission market is different than, say, the plane ticket market in one critically important way -- a major (maybe THE major) factor on both ends of the admissions transaction is prestige, which leads people to make economically irrational decisions.
Take the idea of buying a plane ticket through Priceline. In this transaction, all you care about is:
- Cost
- Convenience
Note that these are both easily quantifiable factors. Cost = which ticket is cheaper; convenience = fewest stopovers, shortest flying time. We don't decide to fly, say, USAirways over United because somehow we perceive USAirways passengers as being smarter or more successful than United passengers. We are free to make a rational economic calculation based on the two factors above, and we'll usually take whichever airline comes out best in this calculation.Similarly, USAirways doesn't have any interest in attracting the smartest or wealthiest people in America to use its service -- one butt fills a seat as well as another, and the important thing is to make sure 100% of available seats are filled with butts. The only prestige distinction is between Coach and First/Business class seating, but even this is limited -- no major airline caters solely to the well-heeled, with 100% First Class seating and wine and Brie servings instead of Coke and peanuts. They provide a limited amount of 1st class seating to squeeze a bigger margin out of those passengers who can afford to pay for more legroom, not to become the Airline of the Elite.
College admissions are totally different. Sure, we think about cost, but the most important factor is usually prestige. This is why, if a child of a lower middle-class family is smart/lucky enough to get into Harvard, the parents will go broke (an economically irrational decision) to keep her there -- the value of a Harvard education isn't quantifiable in, say, higher standardized test scores, but rather a shot at social mobility, a chance to take a step up the ladder. Now, the problem is, factors like "prestige" and "social mobility" are incredibly non-quantifiable, which makes it extremely hard to make an economically rational decision. Do you perceive a prestige difference between USAirways and United? Of course not. How about between, say, Harvard and Podunk State?
This is also in evidence on the other end of the transaction. Colleges, unlike airlines, NEED to attract the best and brightest, to move up in academic rankings, to attract prominent faculty, and to ensure big donations to the endowment fund in the future. So the ones that can't rely on their prestige to attract these kids offer big scholarships to the smartest students ("prestige" applicants), which means that these kids are served well by the current system. Why should they offer themselves through a system that won't offer those prestige schools? They have a shot at going to Harvard -- or going to Podunk State for free!
What this all adds up to is that eCollegeBid won't work. The "stars" on both ends of the transaction have no reason to play -- the best schools have more applicants than they need, the best students have more offers than they can accept. This means that eCollegeBid will turn into something of an academic ghetto, where low-rated schools (the least attractive to applicants) will compete for low-rated applicants (the least attractive to schools). Overall, "demand collection" ala Priceline is a good idea, but it works best in systems where the product is a commodity -- and a college education is pretty much the definition of a non-commodity item.
-- Jason Lefkowitz
Read my blog.
Now, the egalitarian impulse to make education available to all so that the economic opportunity is available to all reflects not only a valid moral impulse, but a valid economic impulse as well: The expenses of education are completely front-loaded, while the benefits continue to accrue over a lifetime.
So, there's a simple solution: the government should grant unlimited loans to anyone for any education. Then, withhold the loan repayment from your paycheck just like the social security deduction. It can be a moderate withholding for low income people, providing a natural subsidy for art historians who may never pay it back, and a honkin' big tax on capital gains for the folks who IPO.
This is another classic from economics, the "lifecycle theory" where you borrow while young, save in middle age, and spend down in maturity to basically evenly spread the same standard of living throughout your life.
From the eCollegebid FAQ:
- --
- -
-----------------------------------------------
19.What happens after the first year?
You may be treated like all other students when it comes to financial aid. That is a question you should ask an offering college and get a written response. To some colleges, it will make sense to continue this arrangement; for others it will not.
-----------------------------------------------
They really, really, should emphasize that more, especially the bit about getting a written response (on official letterhead and everything, no doubt), rather than making it question #19 on their FAQ.
I seem to remember members of my school's _College of Fine Arts_ complaining when aid that had been given the first year was not extended to latter years, calling it a "bait-and-switch".
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
While I did enjoy the education I received at a fine private institution, and appreciated the class sizes (largest class I took in 5 years was ~35 people) that allowed for personal professor attention, my $400/mo. student loan payments suck rather bad. I guess you do tend to get what you pay for (anecdotal evidence from friends at state schools tend to back this up), but it still pains me to think what else I could have done with all that money, especially the stuff I'm still paying.
+&x
>priceline.com, eat your heart out."
According to what I remember about the story:
1) The e-college bidding is run by the same person as priceline.com.
2) The 'interviewed expert' was stating that he saw this site as a way to validate the patent. AKA, see here is someone who paid for the patent. (The college site is paying licencing fees to pricewatch.)
3) 12 schools were mentioned as participating.
4) The college spokesperson found the idea of reverese auction rather silly, claiming the pricing model didn't fit how the college experience works.
If you think the patent idea is bogus, the tone of the interviewer/interviewee was that this patent was a bad one.
The only heart around here being eaten out is a 2 timing snake that hangs out in the grass.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Do elite colleges matter? Are the worth the money? Consider:
In 2000 we will most likely have a choice between Harvard (Gore), Yale (Bush), or Princeton (Bradley).
Of our nine current Supreme Court justices, four attended the same undergraduate college (Stanford). Of the five others, we find graduates of Harvard, Cornell, Chicago, Georgetown, and Holy Cross. Five out of the nine attended a single law school (Harvard); the other law schools are Stanford (2), Yale, Columbia, and Northwestern. (Ginsberg attended Harvard Law for two years, then transferred to Columbia). Not one attended a public university or college, or an obscure private school.
Of the top four cabinet positions:
State: Wellesley (Albright)
Defense: Bowdoin (Cohen)
Treasury: MIT (Summers, replacing Harvard (Rubin))
Attorney-General: Cornell (Reno)
Similar patterns, although not as extreme, can be found in business, the arts, etc. Keep in mind that only about 1-2% of all college graduates attended elite private colleges. Because larger numbers of Americans are attending (mostly public) universities and colleges, the percentage attending elite institutions has probably declined over time, which makes the disproportionate success of elite graduates even more striking.
(from the LBO-talk mailing list, posted by Kelley Walker)
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
Until recently, only a hundred or so colleges had competative admissions and the others scrambled for quality students. Now with the echo boomers and the rising attendence rate (2/3rd HS grads now start college) even the secondary public colleges are getting crowded. So I predict this will only work for the superstars.
The list price and real price at many top colleges are highly divergent already. The median tuition payment at Harvard or Stanford is only half price. Most of the discounting is for economically disadvantaged, and some for special skills.
Maybe I've just spent too much time in the world of top liberal arts colleges but I certainly don't know any admissions staff saying, "Hmmmm, I've got twenty extra slots to fill maybe I'll pick up some extra students on the cheap."
What I see happening are those desperate overbearing parents who send their kids to the $2000 SAT prep courses trying to pay a premium. "Yes Jonny's 3.25 falls below this year's GPA cut-off but we are willing to pay a 15% premium on that $30,000 a year!"
Just one more way for money to control access to education. Kellan
Wealthy parents can pay tens of thousands of dollars extra to get their scholastically challenged kid into Harvard. This may tend to work out badly, but at least it would subsidize tuition costs for the rest of the students.
One thing that I have noticed amoung my college friends who were from europe is that their high school education is much more in depth than ours, They came to school able to perform well in freshman survey courses without much study. I know this is not always the case but in general it is true. They are taught philosophy and higher math and usually have excellent if somewhat rigid essay writing skills. In essence it seems that a french or german HS education is sort of like a liberal arts degree from an average american college. With this training in how to think (because that is the main purpose of a good liberal arts degree) they can immediatly begin to specialize in college or even go straight from high school into the workforce. Perhaps a system such as this in america would eliminate the need for expensive four year colleges and allow a two year specialization in a field of interest. It certainly seems to me that the current level of an average highschool education in america is watered down and puts too much emphasis on rote test taking skills as opposed to training in how to use your brain. (and the scientific method, I'm shocked by how many people I meet who in their understanding of how the world works are at the level of a medeval peasant.) I know for myself that if I had gone into internet stuff out of highschool I'd be a goddamn millionaire by know instead of in debt. But then again college was a four year vaction for me and I wouldn't have missed it for the world.
I live here to. The system here rewards anyone who can cram 15-20 text books into their heads and then repeat the contents on exam day. I scored 590 on the sat when I was 13 and I failed(badly) leaving cert english and maths.
I think it's telling that he only has about 15 colleges signed up, and is "hoping" to add up to 25 - soon. There are something like 5000 4-year colleges and universities in this country. And the ones that you really need to worry about price are the competive ones - and they aren't going to sign up for some service so that their admissions committee can feel like they're at a cow auction. The only colleges that even could consider this service are the ones that only consider GPA, test score and how much money your parents make. And those you can get into anyway.
He also doesn't tell you who the colleges are, so you have no idea where you might be going. I think I'd be hard pressed to move to Alaska if that's the best offer...
This is about "education" being treated as a commodity. Education -- or more precisely the experience of attending college, whether or not that results in an education -- has always been a commodity.
Frankly, I don't see what's wrong with that. I find it fascinating that people get so upset confronting that reality. People have idealized this nebulous conception of "education" as something pure and unbesmirched by the necessities of real life, such as money. "Education" has become a sacred cow. It has become a vehicle for a fantasy about higher, nobler goals for a deeply cynical society.
If your neighborhood fiddler can put up his shingle and offer violin lessions for $N/hr, if your neighborhood yogi can charge $M at the door to attend his yoga class, then teaching can be a commodity. If Club Med, and Outward Bound can charge you for their services, then experiences can be a commodity. Attending college is not morally different, whether you consider tuition to be buying you an education or buying you the experience of being at college.
What is changing here is that instead of colleges setting a price which customers can either pay or not, the customer can haggle. Objections that the (presumed) resultant change in the distribution of college educations will have an undesirable impact on society are at least reasonable. Objections that amount to "colleges should be above the worldliness of commerce" are irrational.
What has been noticably missing from this discussion so far is the admission that would-be students (and their parents) have always comparison shopped. This is not new. Remeber Overlap. Yes, the money matters.
----------------------------------------------
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
From what I understand, The SAT scores are supposed to be based on a standard normal distribution, with 500 being the mean and 100 points being the standard deviation. All they did was recenter the scores so that this is still true. If scores were too high, they would need to recenter the scores in the other direction. Their motives were no more sinister than that. If your confused about statistics concepts and such, look it up. I'm not a statistician.
Two weeks ago on NPR there was an interview with the person running the system and a few college admissions persons. The concensus among the colleges was that no reputable college would subscribe to the service. The person running the reverse auction was unable to name a college more reputable than 'Joe's University of Nuclear Fizix and Lawn Mower Repair' that had expressed interest in signing up.
Yay. Now you too can be part of the online meat market.
College Meat Market: Are you finishing high school? Well, sign up now. Enter your stats (GPA, test scores, etc) and how much your parents can/want to pay and be picked out like a side of meat.
Innocent Student: What you mean I don't get to put down all of my fantastic attributes like my extra-curricular activities and hobbies?(that make me a well-rounded person)
College Meat Market: Oh no, no need for all that superfluos information, we'll just pick that hunk of student meat that has enough money and high enough marks/scores.
Innocent Student: Ok, sounds like the road to higher education.
Right... hmmm... are you seeing the problem here? What happened to picking out a school based on what you wanted to study? Sure, money has to be an issue, and in the US, standardized test scores are magic numbers, but c'mon, this is your child's education ... you really want to "sell" them on a website to whatever college will accept your "bid"??? Yuck!!!!
---
I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
I'll tell my mom she can stop dressing like Greta The Giver of Spitbaths and attending all those bachelor parties, because she can get me a cheaper college education now!
Well said.
To us Europeans, the US education system (education levels, entrance requirements, etc) looks like a JOKE.
Only universities make a difference; and since US high schools don't breed enough students to get into them (the univs), there's plenty of room for us; hence all the foreign PhD students.
Loads of $$$ simply go WASTED on so called 'college' education which really is high school (level) education in our opinion.
All those US hypocrit politicians talkin 'bout Clinton's cigar play and ethics'n'stuff; what a laugh; they better focus on education, coz not fixin it is what's really undermining the long term power position of the US.
PS: common high school curriculum in Flanders, Europe: languages & culture (Dutch, French, English, German, Latin and/or Greek), mathematics (lots of it, 4-8 hours a week), physics, chemistry, biology, art, history, geography, ethics (or religion), sports and i'm probably missin a couple more - go figure...
Wow, I wish I knew that. I had a 35 ACT, and ended up going to a (much inferiour) state university. (for free, of course)
For those unfamiliar with the SAT methodology, you take several mini-tests of which some contribute
;-)
to your score and others are "experimental" which are used to compare test takers from past and
future years (they do this so they don't reuse tests which could lead to cheating)
There have been many theories on why the "average" student would score lower today than in past
years. The best explanation I've heard so far was that many years ago, only the top "college" bound
people took the tests and today, more people are attending college in the US so the average was
bound to fall... people are probably not getting dumber, well at least not 10% dumber...
This theory was backed-up by examining the entering scores of many universities noting that
the average entering scores had not fallen off as much as the average for all test takers.
There's also quite a bit of noise about cultural bias in the SAT, however, as another person
already pointed out, the only statistic that has been reliably correlated to SAT scores is parental
income. I don't know what that says about the test, but it doesn't seem to be a good thing...
The results of the SAT are used widely by many public universities as as pseudo "entrance" exam
which makes it no different than the tests used by many universities in europe and other parts of the
world (the tests taken after high-school)...
Many public universities in various states around the US are required to accept people who score
higher than a certain score (usually around 550 where 500 is the median), and that recieve a
certain grade point average (usually 3.0/4.0), and a certain class ranking (usually upper 30%), and
who make residence in the state. Other people who do not make these criteria are admitted on other
criteria or as space allows. This seems like a pretty reasonable way to allocate a scare resource.
Tuition prices for state universities are quite reasonable as mentioned by other posters and
within reach of the working class (with either loans or scholarships which are quite plentiful).
For private universities, there are several types with various admit criterias, but I'm not aware
of any that strictly admit on SAT scores or GPA alone.
Anybody with $2000 (Who is to say what company or other entity would set up a "college" as a front?) can retrieve this information without the student's authorization.
How does the student know that what he places on Ecollegebid will not come back to haunt him, even in the far future?