In reply to Jim below: I will agree with you as follows. Much of the behavior we see at college campuses, whether public or private, subsidized or unsubsidized, is simply a reflection of the age cohort of 18-22 year olds leaving home and with little responsiblity. Comparatively, we do not see such behavior in professional programs, where the students are significantly older.
However, the point about educational subsidization is about the student on the margin, the 18-year old who must decide whether to enter the adult world or go to college. Furthermore, educational subsidization has the effect of not only distorting the decision-making for the student on the margin, but also is the major factor in education cost inflation, which raises the price of college for everybody and creates debilitating student indebtedness. The point here, to emphasize, is that when you subsidize something, whether education, mortgages, unemployment,, etc. there is going to be a tradeoff, and mocking those who recognize the tradeoff is not going to prove your point. David Shemano --- Original Message--- To: "David B. Shemano" <[email protected]>, Progressive Economics <[email protected]> From: Jim Devine <[email protected]> Sent: 5/08/2009 3:18PM Subject: private vs. state colleges [was: Going Dutch] >> David B. Shemano wrote: >> > A couple of months ago Michael Perelman complained (in generalities of >> > course) >> about the quality and interests of his Chico State students, many of whom >> were >> obviously not going to college for the academic experience. I was going to >> point out, >> (but did not at the time), that his frustration is a product of our societal >> decision to >> subsidize higher education, which has the necessary (and presumably intended) >> effect of encouraging many students to go to college who would not go if the >> opportunity costs were experienced more directly. While it is impossible to >> dispute >> that certain individuals benefit from education subsidies, there is also the >> reality that >> many young people who would be better off immediately entering the workforce >> or >> marrying instead go to college, saddle themselves with significant >> indebtedness, >> learn little of value because they are unprepared or not up to the demands, >> and then >> enter the workforce in no better shape than if they had skipped the college >> experience. >> Furthermore, as Michael has experienced at Chico State, the presence of >> these >> "students" is a distraction for the students who are willing and capable.< >> >> For what it's worth, the students at Loyola Marymount University (a >> private university) are not that much better than those at the >> California State Universities. There are no subsidies from the >> government except for guaranteeing payment of student debt to the >> lenders. The problem is that most members of both groups of students >> come from the California public school system, which has been >> systematically starved since the 1970s, falling lower and lower in >> quality and fighting Alabama schools for the title of "worst." >> >> This reminds me of an old flick that Milton Friedman produced ("Free >> to Lose"? "Fleas are Loose"? I forget the title) where he showed >> students playing Frisbee at some state school and other students >> studying hard at Dartmouth. He indicated that the reason why the >> former were goofing off (Frisbee-playing isn't productive??) and the >> latter where grinding their noses was because the students at the >> state schools were only there because of government subsidies while >> those at Dartmouth were paying full freight (David's point exactly). >> >> Of course, MF's film, like all his work, was fiction. The comparison >> was not based on a significant statistical sample (even though MF had >> studied statistics at one point). Among other things, the students at >> Dartmouth goof off as much as those at state schools, producing lots >> of beer busts and such dreck as the "Dartmouth Review." (Who says >> these students there don't play Frisbee? No-one who's been there >> during warm weather.) Instead of the state subsidizing their stay in >> Club Dart, it's their parents. Usually it's a much larger subsidy than >> the state provides. >> >> Having gone to a (different) Ivy League school, I noticed that a lot >> of students did not work hard at all, because they _felt entitled_. >> They had been told over and over again that they were born to be >> members of the ruling class. Looking at their parents, the main lesson >> they got was that connections (networking) was more important than any >> hard work. (That's not a wrong message: some lazy, drunk, and dyslexic >> frat-boy from my _alma mater_ used his father's connections to rise >> all the way to running the White House! Can you believe it?? Truth is >> always stranger than fiction.) >> >> The students at the state schools, on the other hand, often see going >> to college as a major step forward and try to make the best of it. >> However, having a job on the side often makes that difficult, as not >> having any connections within the power elite. >> -- >> Jim Devine / "If heart-aches were commercials, we'd all be on TV." -- John >> Prine >> _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
