Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (15311)	11/5/2003 7:24:14 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793838

Supply and Demand controls the Ivy League fees. They can charge that much and still fill em up. Politics controls the California System fees. Ivy League prices would get the Politicians run out of office. Your response makes no sense, LB. I don't think you read the entire article. The article specifically says the Ivy League colleges charge high prices and then uses a good deal of that money as financial aid to lower income students. Here, check this part: Yale chooses to charge a very high tuition, but then effectively waives a great deal of it through financial aid. Moreover, Berkeley is already, in effect, giving lots of financial aid out -- but it goes to the wrong people, and it isn't counted in U.S. News ranking. Every affluent student who attends Berkeley, not Yale, in effect gets a $20,000 scholarship to do so. The current aid is just given in the hidden form of low tuition. Looking at Financial Aid, Not Just Tuition, Is the Only Accurate Perspective Once we focus on both tuition and financial aid, it becomes clear that Yale's approach is actually better than Berkeley's at ensuring fairness among students with different financial resources -- and that Berkeley, and other public universities might be well advised to follow Yale, at least to a point. If you're still not convinced, look at it another way: U.C. Berkeley and Yale are selling similar products, but only one -- Yale -- charges a market price. Berkeley, in contrast, still gives a 75%-plus discount. And it gives that discount to rich and poor alike. California taxpayers ought thus to be angry: Their dollars are going to give even wealthy students what may amount, after four years of college, to an $80,000 subsidy. It's time to move to a fairer, and more transparent, system. That system would charge higher tuitions that match or approach market rates. At the same time, it would also offer high financial aid packages for the deserving. California voters have a right to be angry if they are, in effect, offering $80,000 subsidies to rich students. But if they are offering those or similar subsidies only to students who truly need the money, they can be proud that their tax dollars are going to equalize educational opportunity. So, Bill, in light of this, do you stand by your response? --fl