Interesting opinion piece on College Admissions

[srru86]

A Yale Law Schol prof in the Washington Post
Five myths about meritocracy: No, rich families at elite schools aren’t really paying their own way.

A good read if at all interested in the topic of higher ed's role in the larger society.

Not sure why he choose the Garden State as an example, but follows what we have talked about the declining support from the government for public education that has undermined State U and the aspirants looking to education to be socially mobile.

"In a recent year, the tax exemptions granted to Princeton University — which educates more students from the top 1 percent than from the entire bottom half — amounted to a subsidy of $105,000 per student, compared with public education spending of $12,300 per student at Rutgers and $2,400 per student at Essex County College in Newark. Overall, the generally rich students at the richest 10 percent of colleges pay just 20 cents for every dollar spent on their educations, whereas the generally poor and middle-class students at the poorest 10 percent of colleges pay 78 cents on the dollar."

 

[retired711]

Of course, it's the interest from endowments (accumulated through gifts and investments) that educates kids at Ivy League schools. Rutgers' endowment is increasing, but we're still pretty far down even as compared to many public universities. This is somewhat due to the fact that Rutgers was very small before the 1960s, but we should still be doing better. Unfortunately, many of our alums apparently don't have warm fuzzy feelings about their Rutgers experience. This is one more reason Rutgers ought to invest as much as it can in undergraduate education -- but that requires more revenue from the state of N.J.

 

[e5fdny]

Of course, it's the interest from endowments (accumulated through gifts and investments) that educates kids at Ivy League schools. Rutgers' endowment is increasing, but we're still pretty far down even as compared to many public universities. This is somewhat due to the fact that Rutgers was very small before the 1960s, but we should still be doing better. Unfortunately, many of our alums apparently don't have warm fuzzy feelings about their Rutgers experience. This is one more reason Rutgers ought to invest as much as it can in undergraduate education -- but that requires more revenue from the state of N.J.

Agree.

 

[Knight Shift]

From the article: "The richest school districts now spend more than twice as much per student per year as middle-class schools,"

Where did he get that from?
District: Asbury Park City
2017-18 Costs Amount per Pupil: $42,382
District: Keansburg Boro
2017-18 Costs Amount per Pupil: $32,489

District: Rumson-Fair Haven Reg
2017-18 Costs Amount per Pupil: $23,596
District: Manasquan Boro
2017-18 Costs Amount per Pupil: $20,485

https://www.nj.gov/cgi-bin/education/csg/dist.pl

 

[retired711]

From the article: "The richest school districts now spend more than twice as much per student per year as middle-class schools,"

Where did he get that from?
District: Asbury Park City
2017-18 Costs Amount per Pupil: $42,382
District: Keansburg Boro
2017-18 Costs Amount per Pupil: $32,489

District: Rumson-Fair Haven Reg
2017-18 Costs Amount per Pupil: $23,596
District: Manasquan Boro
2017-18 Costs Amount per Pupil: $20,485

https://www.nj.gov/cgi-bin/education/csg/dist.pl

But a lot else besides expenditures per student figures into whether a school is successful in educating students. Camden is #16 in the state in expenditures by student, paying almost $30,000 per student. But would you want your child in the Camden schools?

 

[Knight177lb]

But a lot else besides expenditures per student figures into whether a school is successful in educating students. Camden is #16 in the state in expenditures by student, paying almost $30,000 per student. But would you want your child in the Camden schools?

The biggest factor is out of wedlock births. It doesn't matter how much money you spend, no amount of money is going to fix that.

 

[Knight177lb]

A Yale Law Schol prof in the Washington Post
Five myths about meritocracy: No, rich families at elite schools aren’t really paying their own way.

A good read if at all interested in the topic of higher ed's role in the larger society.

Not sure why he choose the Garden State as an example, but follows what we have talked about the declining support from the government for public education that has undermined State U and the aspirants looking to education to be socially mobile.

"In a recent year, the tax exemptions granted to Princeton University — which educates more students from the top 1 percent than from the entire bottom half — amounted to a subsidy of $105,000 per student, compared with public education spending of $12,300 per student at Rutgers and $2,400 per student at Essex County College in Newark. Overall, the generally rich students at the richest 10 percent of colleges pay just 20 cents for every dollar spent on their educations, whereas the generally poor and middle-class students at the poorest 10 percent of colleges pay 78 cents on the dollar."

I never thought of it that way, but if you're in the 1% and you go to Princeton, don't you pay full tuition? If you're poor and you're good enough to get in to Princeton, I think you'll only pay what you can afford with the help of financial aid (not loans, but reduced tuition). At least that's what I've heard.

 

[RUJohnny99]

Of course, it's the interest from endowments (accumulated through gifts and investments) that educates kids at Ivy League schools. Rutgers' endowment is increasing, but we're still pretty far down even as compared to many public universities. This is somewhat due to the fact that Rutgers was very small before the 1960s, but we should still be doing better. Unfortunately, many of our alums apparently don't have warm fuzzy feelings about their Rutgers experience. This is one more reason Rutgers ought to invest as much as it can in undergraduate education -- but that requires more revenue from the state of N.J.

More likelier than the endowment is the outrageous sticker price. The only one paying full freight to Princeton is everybody’s rich Uncle Sam. So they can throw some token poors into the class, squeeze the government out of a few hundred million, and use that money to subsidize the rich, while the rich make donations to the endowment to get their kids in.

There was an analysis a few years ago of government spending on Stanford and Cal State-East Bay 20 miles away. Stanford was getting 3x the government kickbacks simply because their tuition was $40,000 higher, and nobody pays full price to Stanford.

 

[retired711]

More likelier than the endowment is the outrageous sticker price. The only one paying full freight to Princeton is everybody’s rich Uncle Sam. So they can throw some token poors into the class, squeeze the government out of a few hundred million, and use that money to subsidize the rich, while the rich make donations to the endowment to get their kids in.

There was an analysis a few years ago of government spending on Stanford and Cal State-East Bay 20 miles away. Stanford was getting 3x the government kickbacks simply because their tuition was $40,000 higher, and nobody pays full price to Stanford.

Cal State-East Bay is a second tier school in the public California system. It has nothing in common with Stanford except for being located in the Bay Area. And what government kickbacks are you talking about? Financial aid generally goes to students, not to institutions.