<p>
[quote]
Princeton accepts students based on character and academics. People accepted into Princeton have already made a large investment in time and effort towards academics and other activities. The notion that they need to graduate with a debt for them to appreciate their Princeton education is simply stupid.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ummm... so why do you think Princeton elimated loans? Just about anyone can graduate debt free. And your ignorant comments about Princeton's endowment don't help anything. You probably don't even know what an endowment is; if you did you wouldn't speak of Princeton's like it is some fat treasure chest locked up in a basement under Shirley Tilghman's office.</p>
<p>That said, Princeton's finanicial aid program, (though not perfect,) is the best in the nation. And it continues to improve year by year. Soon it will reach a point where more will have the potential to become too much, and if reason prevails it will remain steady at that mark because since it is completely obvious that tuition, room, board, and books should not be free to people that have no problem paying for them. And I don't think that wealthier students should whine or gripe about paying tuition if paying is no problem for them. Obviously, the burden on the middle class should by eased by improving financial aid even further, however, millionaires don't deserve "gifts" worth 50,000 dollers a year. Therefore, tuition should never be free to absolutely everyone.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the concept of "no free lunch" or "there always is a tradeoff" is a very simplistic notion, and the fact that you feel the need to mention that it isn't tells me a lot about how you perceive yourself. Your username also reinforces the notion that you derive immense pleasure from having others know that you are so great, as does your oh so condescending tone towards that other guy. Wait, let me try to "rephrase for you": you're a prick.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please keep you asinine tone off this board. It doesn't add to your point. Dont resort to childish insults like: YOUR AN IDIOT SPI02!!! Oh and by the way, the concept of "no free lunch" is simple, not simplistic. But evidently your too dumb to understand even such simple things.</p>
<p>Please Ernie H. My understanding of an endowment seems to far surpass yours. It IS some fat treasure chest locked up in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other investments. Unlike Slickhitter would like you to believe, a very small portion of Princeton's endowment is reserved for something specific such as a new library or improvements to the athletic facilities etc. In fact looking at the figure slickhitter provided, at most, only 11 percent of Princeton's budget comes from alumni giving. Most of the endowment is invested in various assets such as stocks, real estate, venture capital, etc. Therefore, most of the endowment CAN be spent. Furthermore, endowment does NOT need to be spent for Princeton to eliminate tuition. Elimination of tuition does not require Princeton to give money to the students. Students don't give money to Princeton.</p>
<p>I was arguing 1of42's obviously incorrect statement that while cutting tuition costs to students would benefit students, there would be an equally detrimental effect on Princeton, which is simply not the case. If Princeton is making a large profit every year even AFTER all the expenses needed to grow and maintain its status (as evident by its GROWING endowment...it grew 3.4 billion dollars from 9.6 bil to 13 bil from 2004-2006), then there is no reason why the University cannot spend that profit on lowering tuition.</p>
<p>Using the statistic that Princeton's endowment grew 3.4 billion dollars from 2004 to 2006, we can get a rough picture for how feasible a free Princeton would be. 6600 students in Princeton per year * 42000 dollars it costs per year * 3 years = 832 million dollars charged on tuition. Thus if Princeton gave free tuition over these four years, they still would have turned a 3.4 billion - 832 million = 2.6 billion dollar profit over the three years. A free Princeton is definitely possible and it is possible at other universities as well - Caltech often debates whether or not to give free tuition at its board meetings.</p>
<p>My comment about graduating with a debt was not based on Princeton's current policy, but rather 1of42's comment "and also because part of making someone appreciate/utilize something more fully is by making it cost something" followed by his comparison of education to buying a house.</p>
<p>Like I said before, 1of42's attempt to apply elementary economic jargon to this situation is simply incorrect. "There is no free lunch" does not mean that two parties cannot mutually benefit. His need to further explain in detail his incorrect idea and then hail it as complex and then mock the previous poster forced me to post a response, perhaps in bad taste.</p>
<p>I apologize beforehand, but I cannot help myself. Ernie H, if you are going to call someone dumb, at least make sure the sentence in which you do it contains no dumb mistakes. Furthermore, I perfectly wellz understand the difference between a simplistic notion and a simple one. The idea of no free lunch is a simplistic notion understood by elementary school students.</p>
Please Ernie H. My understanding of an endowment seems to far surpass yours. It IS some fat treasure chest locked up in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other investments. Unlike Slickhitter would like you to believe, a very small portion of Princeton's endowment is reserved for something specific such as a new library or improvements to the athletic facilities etc. In fact looking at the figure slickhitter provided, at most, only 11 percent of Princeton's budget comes from alumni giving. Most of the endowment is invested in various assets such as stocks, real estate, venture capital, etc. Therefore, most of the endowment CAN be spent. Furthermore, endowment does NOT need to be spent for Princeton to eliminate tuition. Elimination of tuition does not require Princeton to give money to the students. Students don't give money to Princeton.</p>
<p>I was arguing 1of42's obviously incorrect statement that while cutting tuition costs to students would benefit students, there would be an equally detrimental effect on Princeton, which is simply not the case. If Princeton is making a large profit every year even AFTER all the expenses needed to grow and maintain its status (as evident by its GROWING endowment...it grew 3.4 billion dollars from 9.6 bil to 13 bil from 2004-2006), then there is no reason why the University cannot spend that profit on lowering tuition.</p>
<p>Using the statistic that Princeton's endowment grew 3.4 billion dollars from 2004 to 2006, we can get a rough picture for how feasible a free Princeton would be. 6600 students in Princeton per year * 42000 dollars it costs per year * 3 years = 832 million dollars charged on tuition. Thus if Princeton gave free tuition over these four years, they still would have turned a 3.4 billion - 832 million = 2.6 billion dollar profit over the three years. A free Princeton is definitely possible and it is possible at other universities as well - Caltech often debates whether or not to give free tuition at its board meetings.</p>
<p>My comment about graduating with a debt was not based on Princeton's current policy, but rather 1of42's comment "and also because part of making someone appreciate/utilize something more fully is by making it cost something" followed by his comparison of education to buying a house.</p>
<p>Like I said before, 1of42's attempt to apply elementary economic jargon to this situation is simply incorrect. "There is no free lunch" does not mean that two parties cannot mutually benefit. His need to further explain in detail his incorrect idea and then hail it as complex and then mock the previous poster forced me to post a response, perhaps in bad taste.</p>
<p>I apologize beforehand, but I cannot help myself. Ernie H, if you are going to call someone dumb, at least make sure the sentence in which you do it contains no dumb mistakes. Furthermore, I perfectly wellz understand the difference between a simplistic notion and a simple one. The idea of no free lunch is a simplistic notion understood by elementary school students.
</p>
<p>I'll assume your previous post was deleted, probably because it wasted space that could be spent on intelligent discourse (though more likely because, as shown by the quoted section, you can't argue with me so instead you stoop to insulting me).</p>
<p>I could return the favor of personal insults, but frankly it's not worth my time to insult you (I can't improve by demonstrating your idiocy on things you've already wrought yourself, namely your previous posts). However, while your personal insults don't spread general idiocy (since everyone reading them can understand immediately how misguided they are), this last post does. Therefore, I feel it would be irresponsible not to address it.</p>
<p>Your first paragraph shows that you are ignorant as to the nature of the endowment. While you're correct that some of it is not tied up for specific purposes (much of it is, but not a very small portion as you say), alumni giving is the largest contributor to the endowment. You saying that only "11 percent of Princeton's budget comes from alumni giving" is absolutely ridiculous, since no alumni give to the operating budget - they give to the endowment, from which the operating budget is drawn. As to you saying that the endowment does not need to be spent to eliminate tuition, that statement simply shows that again you're missing the point - the endowment obviously won't be directly spent, as no one's being paid (which you pointed out) - but the implicit increase in costs due to not having tuition as a source of income are equivalent to paying directly from the endowment, just in a roundabout way.</p>
<p>Moving on, your second paragraph again displays your talent at creating straw man arguments. When did I ever say that there would be an exactly equivalent cost to Princeton for eliminating tuition?</p>
<p>Where is it? Is it... oh wait, no, because I didn't say that EVER. While fabricating false arguments to refute me may be the only way you can ever hope to score even imagined victories in this debate, try your best to avoid that line of "argumentation".</p>
<p>The growth of the endowment is fueled by the excellent 14.8% (average) rate of return on the assets invested in by the endowment. So why can't the money required simply be drawn out of that? Good question. It has to do with long term rates of growth. Over 3 years, if you compound that 14.8% growth rate, it returns the approximately accurate actual growth figures you provided. But what happens if you were to remove the necessary money to fund free tuition? That rate of return drops nearly 3 percent. Which again, it could be argued, is still fine, leaving a nice 12% growth rate.</p>
<p>But the point of the endowment isn't to just be growing. The point of the endowment isn't to just be adequate. The point of the high growth rate of the endowment is to safeguard its own future purchasing power. If the markets were to take a significant enough hit to affect the endowment, as much padding as possible is wanted, and really, is necessary. If there were ever a point in the future where Princeton needed to cut things off because of an endowment lacking in purchasing power (due to inflation or anything else), it would be a travesty. To summarize: to measure the endowments growth in dollars is ludicrous. Measure its growth in purchasing power (which is much lower), and you'll understand why it's growing at the rate it is.</p>
<p>My comment about appreciating something through it costing money is absolutely true. The tragedy of the commons is a phenomenon that is applicable - though obviously with some difference. If you don't know what the preceding things are, go look them up before even trying to answer this post.</p>
<p>While the idea of no free lunch may be elementary, that doesn't make it less true. That is a key fact for you to understand. While this obviously does not mean that both parties cannot benefit, it's still true. On a side note - when did I ever say that two parties could not benefit from a trade off? I DIDN'T! You assumed that's what I was saying, and based your ill-constructed argument on that assumption. Re-read my post and you'll see I said nothing of the sort.</p>
<p>Now, on to the part where I get potentially offensive:</p>
<p>
the concept of "no free lunch" or "there always is a tradeoff" is a very simplistic notion, and the fact that you feel the need to mention that it isn't tells me a lot about how you perceive yourself. Your username also reinforces the notion that you derive immense pleasure from having others know that you are so great, as does your oh so condescending tone towards that other guy. Wait, let me try to "rephrase for you": you're a prick.
</p>
<p>Who the hell are you? You're analyzing my username to try to make some kind of connection and thus insult me. Are you kidding!? That is so pathetic on so many levels, that I can't even address it. Addressing my username though, it's actually ironic that you think it shows me trying to be important. If you understood it (and I'll explain it in PM if you still don't get it, just ask me), you would understand that it's doing nothing of the sort. My condescending tone is in response to his condescending tone - and, ironically, to yours. Get a life.</p>
<p>Finally, to address your point that Caltech is debating whether or not to make tuition free. Allow me an analogy. Whether or not evolution theory is actually correct is debated at length by many people. Most of them happen not to know what they're talking about, but that's besides the point. The point is that just because something is debated does not make it a legitimate debate. Creationism is obviously a crock, but it's debated all over the place. The fact that Caltech isn't free yet puts the nail in the coffin for your little argument, which makes me wonder why you'd even mention it. Oh well, it's not the most erratic thing you said.</p>
<p>What should you take away from this? Bad arguments are bad. And you trying to ascribe crappy arguments to me that I never made in order to score small victories is a terrible way to debate - although it's an improvement over your other method, namely aimless floundering.</p>
<p>1of42, you did not read my original post which highlighted the reasons why your argument is incorrect so I will cut you some slack, but first I will address the points you have made to my most recent post.</p>
<p>My point about endowment was made to emphasize that slickhitter was incorrect in his statement that most of the endowment is tied up in alumni specified projects. This is simply incorrect. Most of the 13 billion dollars is invested in various assets as I previously stated. A SMALL portion is tied up in these projects.</p>
<p>My second point regarding the fact that Princeton doesn't actually have to pay anything to the students was made to emphasize that whether or not the endowment was or was not tied up in projects had no bearing on the current situation.</p>
<p>My point regarding Caltech was to show that free tuition is not as infeasible as many here seem to find. The fact that Caltech does not have free tuition does not mean that Princeton should not. I would also like to think that the Caltech board is more educated than those touting Creationism. The fact that it is brought up regularly in a well educated board does give credibility to the argument. Take a page from your own book, grasping for straws in order to score small victories is a terrible way to debate. </p>
<p>Also, I understand the tragedy of the commons perfectly well. Do you? Students must pay to get into Princeton with numerous sacrifices during their childhood and teenage years. Do you think the cost of tuition is anything compared to that? Do you think that Princeton students would appreciate anymore if they had to pay an extra 40000 dollars? The time and effort that it took to get into Princeton far surpasses any monetary expense. A free Princeton is not shared by whomever wishes admittance. A free Princeton is shared by those who have earned their admittance. Your analogy of Princeton to the commons and to buying a house could not be more wrong.</p>
<p>Now to the crux of the problem. </p>
<p>In providing examples of a free lunch, you used monetary ones, emphasizing the fact that if one party gains x dollars, another has to lose x dollars. You further apply this concept of conservation of money to Princeton.</p>
<p>"Which is really the whole point. If you were to make Princeton's tuition free for students, it would have to be paid for by something else. Would donations step up enough to support it? I don't really think so, since I doubt that anyone who wouldn't be inclined to donate now would be more inclined with free tuition (and I doubt that the students who would be attending who otherwise wouldn't would be especially more inclined either). Is the endowment enough to support it? Maybe, but not without sacrificing some of Princeton's position as a leading research school."</p>
<p>Oh wait?.... What's the whole point? Notice how you're so fixed on finding ways to pay for the money Princeton loses.</p>
<p>Looking at the picture from a strictly monetary standpoint is not the way to assess any situation. "There is no free lunch" applies strictly to rigid matters and is a simplistic way to look at the situation. It's a simple case of welfare economics. You need to take into account the preferences of the two parties. Here, I am arguing that we are not at the contract curve - one or both parties can benefit from trade. To Princeton, losing the money gained from tuition will drop their already fantastic ROR to a still fantastic 12 percent. It will NOT diminish their research. It will not make Princeton hire less competent Professors as you previously stated. They will still be making billions of dollars. Instead, Princeton gains a better applicant pool. The students greatly by the free tuition. If the current situation were Pareto Efficient, there is no free lunch. But it's not.</p>
<p>"While the idea of no free lunch may be elementary, that doesn't make it less true. That is a key fact for you to understand. While this obviously does not mean that both parties cannot benefit, it's still true." Yes. Many things are true. Only ones that are applicable to the situation should be posted. That is the key fact for you to understand. </p>
<p>Your argument fails to take into account the preferences of the two parties and instead focuses on the monetary gains and losses, which you sum up in the phrase "no free lunch." As shown, this phrase simply does not apply in this situation where both stand to benefit from trade. There is economic inefficiency in this situation.</p>
<p>Regarding your personal attacks, you were the one that was overly condescending to the other poster. The other poster merely said (correctly) that the notion of a free lunch was not applicable, and that it was a catch phrase. You responded by calling him misguided and then writing a post dripping with condescension with every other sentence attempting to drive home the notion that you are smarter and superior to him in every way. Please.</p>
<p>What should you take away from this? Wrong arguments are wrong, and you trying to flounder your way out of a wrong argument won't help you, although that impenetrable cloud of egotism surrounding your bloated head might make it seem so.</p>
<p>spi02, you are missing the point. Giving free tuition to everyone is like sending welfare checks to everyone, Bill Gates and co. included, whether they need it or not.</p>
<p>Currently, 55 percent of Princeton students receive financial aid in some form. That means that 45 percent of Tigers don't qualify for any form of aid - an impressive statistic that says a lot about the finiancial mettle of Princeton's undgraduate body. 45 percent of Princetonians are able to pay almost 200,000 dollers and graduate with an average debt of... umm... a mere 4,370 dollers for all four years. (According to US News.) This is the lowest average debt of any university in the nation. Now, it would be great if the financial aid office were able to guarantee NO debts for every graduating senior, (and I believe that will happen soon,) but I am sure that a large part, even most, of that 45 percent are already able to graduate without any debt. Heck, if you can pay 200,000, whats another 4,000? This brings me to the conclusion that these students are able to pay the tuition fees without a significant burden being layed on their families. And if this is the case, they should keep on paying.</p>
<p>Of course money isn't the only dimension to any economic transaction, but int his case it's a key one. You've ignored the times where I've specifically addressed the main thrust of your argument, preferring instead to focus on the side points I made (for example, my analogy to the tragedy of the commons, where you ignore the fact that I specifically say it is not a direct application, due to your correct point that access is not free). So I'm going to re-focus your attention on my rebuttal:</p>
<p>If tuition is made free, the primary cost is obvious. Princeton has to spend more of their endowment each year, as they no longer have tuition as an income source. While this won't make the endowment shrink (given its high growth rate), it will certainly make it grow much more slowly. As is trivial to forecast, given even slight knowledge of geometric sequences, over time this will result in a huge discrepancy if tuition is free. This is not desirable; as I said (and you ignored), the point of the endowment is not to continue to grow at whatever positive growth rate can be achieved. It's not to just perform well enough that it's not losing money. The point of the endowment is to be excessively large enough that in the future, it retains enough purchasing power for the university to maintain its position as a leading institution. Would it, if tuition were removed as a source of growth? Maybe, but not necessarily. That's not a risk I think Princeton should be willing to take.</p>
<p>Are there other costs? Maybe. I personally would suggest that some applicants would come to Princeton who would not otherwise be willing to - since the effective "price" is lower, many who were not willing to attend before will come. Is this desirable? Again, it depends. It could be argued that these new students would raise the quality of the student body - but I don't think they would. Yes, some would come who are from lower-income families, and thus increase diversity. Some of these would be smarter and better students than a normal Princeton student body - but some might not be. At the same time, many would apply simply because it's free - for example, I know (and know of) many people who have decided that when applying to Olin.</p>
<p>What are the benefits? The benefit is one I already mentioned - some legitimately low income students who could not afford to come before could come. That's really the only benefit from Princeton's point of view. Of course, for students the education is now free. But that's a weak argument, because saying that something being free is inherently a good idea leads to all kinds of ridiculous ideas. Furthermore, it gives a free education to those who absolutely don't need it, and who arguably should be paying more for it.</p>
<p>This overall balancing of negative and positive results (costs vs. benefits) is what I meant when I expressed the trade off idea. Yes, I'm guilty of only using monetary examples. But this is not because I'm narrow-minded enough to think that money is the only way of expressing such costs or benefits. I used money because many other people cannot think outside those terms.</p>
<p>Realistically, we're arguing the same idea of trade offs here - the difference is that you think the benefit to the students is matched by a benefit to Princeton itself, thus making the whole thing a good idea for everyone. For my part, I'm arguing that there is a cost to Princeton, and that it outweighs the benefit to the students as a whole. Which of us is right? I happen to think I am, for the reasons I just outlined. Clearly, you also think you are.</p>
<p>But let's keep this in a legible format so that the argument isn't diluted into pointless recriminations. Could you post, clearly and concisely, the costs and benefits you perceive to a free tuition? Let's see what our legitimate disagreement on the issue is, instead of bogging ourselves down in sideshow debate.</p>
<p>1of42, it is up for debate what Princeton's preference curves are and how much they value or should value future purchasing power. </p>
<p>"This is not desirable; as I said (and you ignored), the point of the endowment is not to continue to grow at whatever positive growth rate can be achieved. It's not to just perform well enough that it's not losing money. The point of the endowment is to be excessively large enough that in the future, it retains enough purchasing power for the university to maintain its position as a leading institution. Would it, if tuition were removed as a source of growth? Maybe, but not necessarily. That's not a risk I think Princeton should be willing to take."</p>
<p>The fact that the endowment continues growing much faster, and will continue growing much faster even if tuition is free, than the current interest rate even after the funds needed to maintain Princeton's position as a leading institution are accounted for implies that Princeton has little to lose from enacting free tuition. A reduced rate of growth after costs are taken into account will not negatively affect the university's standing. The only argument that can be made is that this rate of growth will not ensure financial security in the case of market failure, basically how much is financial security worth to Princeton. I argue that with the endowment at its numbers now, and with a still impressive rate of growth after free tuition, it is well ready to survive any market disaster without seeing negative side effects to its quality of education or operations.</p>
<p>However, this is not my main argument with you. My argument is with your use of the phrase "no free lunch" and your continued defense of it. It is wrong to use this phrase in any decision making process because its two uses are not relevant to a decision. The first use, which you seem to be using is that if one person gains x of a good, another must lose x of that. This is not only obvious, but irrelevant because we care about how much the good matters to the two parties (their preferences, their utility, their overall sense of wellbeing), not the simple transfer of goods as this use of the phrase implies. The other way it can be used is the economic definition of the concept. In working markets where resources are allocated efficiently, a gain in one party's utility through a gain of a good must mean a decrease in the other party's. However the only reason one debates a trade is to determine whether or not the two parties have an efficient allocation of goods (if not then both or one can gain without harming the other). Thus we are debating whether or not we can get a "free lunch." Do you now see why the use of the phrase of "no free lunch" is not applicable to decision making?</p>
<p>By arguing about the costs and benefits to Princeton and the students, we are attempting to determine their preferences - whether or not this change will increase their utility or overall welfare. You acknowledge this, yet you still defend your use of "no free lunch" which is simplistic and irrelevant as to deciding on whether or not Princeton should or should not give free tuition.</p>
<p>This was, and is, my main problem with your argument - not your spiel on cost benefit analysis. Your further need to belittle other people who correctly state that the notion of a free lunch is both simplistic and irrelevant is my problem with your posts.</p>
<p>The no free lunch comment was addressed mainly at people who made it seem like there was no downside to Princeton enacting free tuition. I'll still defend the phrase, because it's still true - there is a cost to Princeton making tuition free.</p>
<p>No free lunch is completely applicable to decision making in this case. I never said, and will never say that the loss of "goods" would equal the gain of "goods". I don't know why you're pointing this out to me, because I never said it. My point was always that in this situation making tuition free has cost. People were not recognizing it, and it needed to be pointed out. Not cost in money - which as you have rightly pointed last post to explicitly include talk of preferences and utility, but it would be inane. It gets its message across anyways.</p>
<p>As to your excellent point about debating trade meaning there is not an efficient allocation of resources, I disagree. My point of view is that there is an efficient allocation of resources, and that in this case there is no free lunch, like I've been saying all along. Clearly you disagree, but that doesn't make me wrong, and thus by extension my use of the phrase was not necessarily incorrect.</p>
<p>I never said the fact that there is no free lunch should be used to make the decision. I simply said it had to be acknowledged as something that has to be taken into account WHILE making the decision - namely, the cost benefit analysis I provided. Others were not grasping this concept, and so I pointed it out.</p>
<p>You appear to fundamentally have misunderstood me - the above should rectify this. As to you accusing me of belittling people, my belittling tone did not even start until kamikaze wave had already begun. He made a pointless comment about college essays, which contributed nothing to his argument, and was clearly meant to incite something. He also dismissed what I said as a catchphrase without even deigning to respond to it - which I would suggest was because he was incapable. You on the other hand are different. My condescending tone towards him was because he didn't even respond to my point, merely dismissed it without rebuttal and continued on into irrelevancy. My condescending tone towards you was based on the fact that you personally insulted me in your first post, evidently egregiously enough that the post has been removed (without me even reporting it).</p>
<p>Finally, you have yet to provide any argument as to why making tuition free would have any benefits to Princeton at all. You seem to be implying that making tuition free would obviously boost the quality of the student body - I disagree. I don't know wat other benefits you perceive, but so far your entire argument has been based on "Princeton can afford it". Maybe it can, maybe it can't. But whether or not it can or can't is irrelevant if there is no gain to the policy. As an example, Princeton could afford giving $500,000,000 a year to charity, but it doesn't. Please, before you continue analyzing things I said in posts a page ago, actually outline what you think the benefits to Princeton making tuition free are, and why they are greater than the cost incurred.</p>