Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies? • Hacker News Board

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#11

Post by dragoon » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 2:33 PM UTC

carbocation wrote: post #7

In contrast to what this surprisingly uninformed piece claims, the top universities do compete on price. In fact, they offer incredibly good financial aid packages to people not even remotely poor (families earning over 100k still get discounts). Thus, very few end up paying the sticker price. There actually is downward pressure on price, but this is because it's coming from the top schools, not from any disruptive f…

In fact, they offer incredibly good financial aid packages to people not even remotely poor (families earning over 100k still get discounts). Thus, very few end up paying the sticker price.

I wouldn't say it's "incredibly good financial aid", especially in light of the nightmarishly high tuitions universities now charge and the fact that an inordinately high percentage of people have to take on nondischargeable debt. It's price discrimination. I'm not saying this is a bad thing; it's arguably for the better that colleges do this, because if they didn't, poor students would have no hope of attending, but price discrimination is still what's happening.

Also, only a token number of low-income students are admitted to the top schools, due to "extracurricular" admissions criteria that are socioeconomic by design. This is why these universities can fearlessly offer need-blind admissions; poor kids rarely pass the extracurricular hurdles.

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#12

Post by carbocation » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 2:45 PM UTC

dragoon wrote: post #11

carbocation wrote: post #7

In contrast to what this surprisingly uninformed piece claims, the top universities do compete on price. In fact, they offer incredibly good financial aid packages to people not even remotely poor (families earning over 100k still get discounts). Thus, very few end up paying the sticker price. There actually is downward pressure on price, but this is because it's coming from the top schools, not from any disruptive f…

In fact, they offer incredibly good financial aid packages to people not even remotely poor (families earning over 100k still get discounts). Thus, very few end up paying the sticker price. I wouldn't say it's "incredibly good financial aid", especially in light of the nightmarishly high tuitions universities now charge and the fact that an inordinately high percentage of people have to take on nondischargeable debt.…

What I'm getting out of this is that you prefer the term "price discrimination" to "financial aid." The specific choice of words doesn't really matter to me if they're describing the same phenomenon.

> Also, only a token number of low-income students are admitted to the top schools, due to "extracurricular" admissions criteria that are socioeconomic by design. This is why these universities can fearlessly offer need-blind admissions; poor kids rarely pass the extracurricular hurdles.

Since we're talking about top schools, let's focus on Yale. Enough people with some degree of need are passing the "extracurricular hurdles" that 55% of Yalies receive financial aid. Yale spends nearly $100 million annually on financial aid. And this is up from roughly $32 million in 2001. This is not just a "token" expenditure, nor is it a token growth in spending.

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#13

Post by silvestrov » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 2:48 PM UTC

dragoon wrote: post #8

These are completely different markets. The majority of car consumers just want reliable transportation; the car is essentially a commodity. If Japanese cars are of higher quality, people will buy them instead of American cars. With university degrees, quality of education is second and prestige is first in importance. These are correlated but not always the same, and this is one of the reasons why academia is not vu…

This can change quickly. American cars in the 60'ies were not commodities, design was much more important back then.

There is nothing intrinsic in education which makes the university's prestige the most important. Look outside USA, e.g. at northern Europe where the prestige of the university is not important, but the grades and (esp.) the person are.

For some professions the university and grades is all that's considered when employing someone. But for others (e.g. programming) you need to test the person yourself because the university and grades doesn't tell you (reliably) how good the candidate is.

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#14

Post by Robin_Message » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 2:48 PM UTC

dragoon wrote: post #8

These are completely different markets. The majority of car consumers just want reliable transportation; the car is essentially a commodity. If Japanese cars are of higher quality, people will buy them instead of American cars. With university degrees, quality of education is second and prestige is first in importance. These are correlated but not always the same, and this is one of the reasons why academia is not vu…

In the UK, the prestige of the car one drives is at least as relevant as the degree one has. Really, and I don't see how the US is any different. A few years back (when I lived at home) my Dad's company prevented him getting a Renault Espace as a company car. He wanted it for reliable transportation and to get children and stuff around. But he wasn't allowed one, because it wasn't professional enough. So we got an enormously long Volvo instead, which was great because the rearmost seats faced backwards -- anyway, I digress.

The point is, social signalling is very important in both cars and degrees, and if I had to rank them, I'd say car prestige could even matter more than car quality, whereas education is the other way around.

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#15

Post by noelwelsh » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 2:49 PM UTC

goodwinb wrote: post #10

Can you HNers think of a way to separate the teaching aspect of university from the research aspect? They seem to serve two different customers. Teaching is really for students to educate them and season them up for life. Research is for the government or business and makes the professor and university money. I think we can all remember a hard core research professor who could not teach a class worth a damn. On the o…

The idea is that the experts pass on their knowledge, gained from research, to the students. Sure there are a large number of people who can teach, say, Calculus 1, but there are dramatically fewer who can teach the higher level courses. This is one of the attractions of top universities -- you have the leading experts in the fields teaching their specialities. Thus it isn't clear to me that teaching and research should be separated at the highest level. At the University of Phoenix level, yes, it makes sense.

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#16

Post by sprout » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 2:50 PM UTC

goodwinb wrote: post #10

Can you HNers think of a way to separate the teaching aspect of university from the research aspect? They seem to serve two different customers. Teaching is really for students to educate them and season them up for life. Research is for the government or business and makes the professor and university money. I think we can all remember a hard core research professor who could not teach a class worth a damn. On the o…

The merger of research and teaching is a public good, for multiple reasons. One, it makes it easier for teachers to spend some time doing. (naturally apprenticeship programs could serve the same goal) Two, it makes the public bankroll research they might not otherwise see the importance of (having very poor understanding of how progress works.)

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#17

Post by yummyfajitas » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 2:50 PM UTC

dragoon wrote: post #8

These are completely different markets. The majority of car consumers just want reliable transportation; the car is essentially a commodity. If Japanese cars are of higher quality, people will buy them instead of American cars. With university degrees, quality of education is second and prestige is first in importance. These are correlated but not always the same, and this is one of the reasons why academia is not vu…

It's a virtual certainty that upstarts wont have the same prestige.

The situation is even worse if Upstart Tech is non-accredited. Unfortunately, it will be very difficult for Upstart Tech to become accredited if it doesn't behave exactly like Dinosaur Tech - most of the requirements consist of measuring inputs (e.g., contact hours, student services), not outputs (student knowledge).

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#18

Post by VSlug » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 2:55 PM UTC

goodwinb wrote: post #10

Can you HNers think of a way to separate the teaching aspect of university from the research aspect? They seem to serve two different customers. Teaching is really for students to educate them and season them up for life. Research is for the government or business and makes the professor and university money. I think we can all remember a hard core research professor who could not teach a class worth a damn. On the o…

I couldn't agree more. I attended a small liberal arts college and feel that I learned a lot from dedicated professors who did little, if any, research. And then I was a graduate student at a university where teaching was considered a chore by professors who wanted to spend their time in the laboratory. At the very least, there should be a greater demarcation between undergraduate professors (who should be teachers) and graduate professors (who should be researchers). As to your business model question, one start would be to make research more grant-contingent. This already happens in hard sciences, but could be applied more to humanities as well.

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#19

Post by Robin_Message » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 2:56 PM UTC

goodwinb wrote: post #10

Can you HNers think of a way to separate the teaching aspect of university from the research aspect? They seem to serve two different customers. Teaching is really for students to educate them and season them up for life. Research is for the government or business and makes the professor and university money. I think we can all remember a hard core research professor who could not teach a class worth a damn. On the o…

Yes. University level teaching needs to be done by academics, otherwise it wouldn't be university level, but it doesn't have to be done in universities.

Or, to put it another way, the problem is not that academics do research, it's that no-one else has read and understands the relevant literature to be able to teach up-to-date at that level.

Why not create a university that gets good academics who can also teach (train them if necessary) and pays them good money to do the teaching well. They would continue to do research somewhere else. That somewhere else would be a university with grad students, but no under-grads, and it would pay on the basis of research alone, with no internal teaching.

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#20

Post by dragoon » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 3:00 PM UTC

carbocation wrote: post #12

dragoon wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, they offer incredibly good financial aid packages to people not even remotely poor (families earning over 100k still get discounts). Thus, very few end up paying the sticker price. I wouldn't say it's "incredibly good financial aid", especially in light of the nightmarishly high tuitions universities now charge and the fact that an inordinately high percentage of people have to take on nondischargeable debt.…

What I'm getting out of this is that you prefer the term "price discrimination" to "financial aid." The specific choice of words doesn't really matter to me if they're describing the same phenomenon. > Also, only a token number of low-income students are admitted to the top schools, due to "extracurricular" admissions criteria that are socioeconomic by design. This is why these universities can fearlessly offer need-…

Enough people with some degree of need are passing the "extracurricular hurdles" that 55% of Yalies receive financial aid.

The vast, vast, vast majority of people in that 55% are not even remotely poor. Most are of upper-middle income and of even higher socioeconomic status (e.g. progeny of diplomats, famous art gallery owners, and esteemed professors who make a merely upper-middle income but are higher in social status).

Yale spends nearly $100 million annually on financial aid. And this is up from roughly $32 million in 2001. This is not just a "token" expenditure, nor is it a token growth in spending.

It "spends" that money by giving aid packages that can only be redeemed by purchasing their extremely expensive product. Don't get me wrong; I think it's better for universities to price discriminate in this case than for them not to do so. However, it's not accurate to claim that they're bending over backward to provide equal access to the poor, as they're demonstrably not doing this.