(06-01-2022 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m not following - can you explain your thoughts there?

To me, it is likely the reverse. Wealthy individuals foot more of the bill to subsidize education for all classes of individuals. And given that state institutions vary greatly, there is not a large barrier to entry in terms of acceptance.

Same with public primary and secondary schooling - more $$ come from wealthy individuals while lower income students reap the same benefits as higher income students (i.e., access to free schooling).

Won't speak for George, but I agree with him.

First, unlike Rice where we can essentially increase tuition for the wealthy and offer scholarships to the less wealthy, the 'price' for state schools is the same regardless of income. Sure, they can still offer aid, but lots of state schools don't have the endowment of UT or A&M. The whole reason A&M is 13k in state and 43k out of state, while Rice is what now... 60k either way is the taxpayer subsidy. A wealthy person might have to pay 60k to attend Rice, and 13k to attend A&M. A poor person might pay zero either way. A middle class person might pay 6k for A&M and 10k for Rice.

I'm dating myself, but when George and I were in school, I believe Rice was something like 15k/yr. Then the ranking systems models changed and preference was given to Universities that charged 50k and the offered subsidies down to an average cost of 15k over schools that simply charged 15k. The math is the same, but 'who pays what' is different. In the former and 'still' for state schools, the wealthy get a huge break. In the latter and with Rice now, we can charge those who can afford to pay more, more... and those who cannot, less... not from the endowment, but from the higher tuition from the wealthy.

Throw in concepts regarding 'merit' scholarships and a bias there and I completely see what George is talking about.