<p>
[quote]
In terms of the public good, there are multifaceted benefits and they don't accrue because of, or only to, students. If you think the waters are muddied by what I said, you are missing the point again.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what would these benefits be exactly, that the private schools don't provide?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You were implying that privates were somehow always more efficient and therefore better, and I was challenging that. Now you've changed the terms and said that they are no worse than public schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I never said that privates were "always" more efficient and therefore "always" better than public institutions. I said that in general they were. I think that has been proven to be so in history. Look at the economic history of the USSR. Completely state-run economy that was deeply inefficient. </p>
<p>But that's irrelevant. You are the one who is defending preferences for public schools. Hence, your conclusion holds only if public schools do in fact have an efficiency advantage over private schools. I would like to know what the source of this advantage is. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In terms of absolute research effectiveness, either you or I could only be anecdotal at this point. As a system, and even broken down into at least some of its constituent schools, the UC garners many more patents per year than $25-billion endowed Harvard and stacks up very competitively against both private and public powerhouses like MIT, Stanford, and University of Texas. Rather than parsing the relative merits of either type of system, I am sticking with a basic contention that the UC system in particular has been an institution of incredible enlightened self-interest for the state which didn't see it merely as a trade school, but as a multi-faceted institution that has provided, and continues to provide, incredible benefits not simply through the training of students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody disputes that Berkeley is a strong university. But that in fact, actually strengthens my conclusion. After all, if Berkeley is so strong by itself, then why does it need to rely on public preferences? Since it's so strong, it should be able to compete against all private schools without relying on any preferences, right? So why should Berkeley get first dibs on any government research money over private schools? I think that, since Berkeley is so strong, Berkeley should be able to compete fairly (and win) for research grants against private schools. Furthermore, why should state tuition subsidies go towards California undergrads going to Berkeley, but not to private schools? Again, if Berkeley really is so strong, then Berkeley should be able to compete fairly for students and win. </p>
<p>The bottom line is this. If Berkeley is so strong because of its preferences, then that shows that Berkeley really isn't as strong as it seems. If Berkeley really is as strong as you say it is (and I think it is), then Berkeley shouldn't need to have to rely on preferences, right? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh, come now, as you said before; try to be a little more discriminating in how you present your examples.. The reason we have a public mail system that works the way it does is, among other things, because of rural mail delivery. The postal system as a whole should strive to be solvent, but it doesn't need to be profitable in a marginal mailbox added sense. And in so doing, it can serve every address in the nation. That's the notion. I would argue it actually has worked pretty well. If you left mail delivery up to private concerns to decide where and when to deliver, rationally they'd cut out probably all non-MSA areas. The preservation of monopoly power for the post office does beget a public good I would argue of great import for our nation. Please don't argue that it's just a bureaucratic interest and not a public interest that keeps FedEx out of our mailboxes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah ha! I thought you might come back with that argument, because it's the same argument that the USPS has made. But as economists like Sowell have argued, that's just justifying one economic inefficiency with another. After all, why should we have to subsidize those rural people's mail delivery service? If it is worth it to those people to live out in rural areas and still get mail, then they should be willing to pay for the increased cost to do so themselves. We shouldn't have to pay for them. </p>
<p>After all, again, think of it from an equity standpoint. There are a lot of rich people living out in rural areas, i.e. the exurbs. Why are we subsidizing the mail delivery of these rich people who have specifically chosen to live far away from others? What's up with that? If those rich people truly find it economically worthwhile to live far away from everybody else, then they should pay the costs for their mail delivery. Otherwise, they shouldn't be living out there. For those poor people who live in rural areas, a far more economically efficient way to solve the problem is to simply redistribute some funds to them and then let them decide whether they want to actually pay for rural mail delivery, or simply move to a more populous area where delivery is cheaper. THAT would the efficient solution. You don't justify one economic inefficiency with another. What you work to do is to eliminate the inefficiency. Those particular markets participants who are generating higher costs should have higher price signals presented to them. </p>
<p>
[quote]
This contradicts what you said above about equalizing subsidies. I am saying there are tuition subsidies granted and that they shouldn't be larger than those garnered by public schools. If "they really didn't want to be there", they wouldn't have gone. What you are saying is they'd prefer to be at Stanford, but they'd prefer to be at Berkeley vs. all their other options. If they got into Stanford and Berkeley, I'll bet they could have applied to, let's say UoP and gotten a full ride. But they chose Berkeley. Why? Because Berkeley presumably provides them with a better education and more prestige. Berkeley may not always or even often stack up in people's preferences in direct comparison to Stanford for college, but in the case you talked about it turns out to be a solid, viable alternative. If it weren't, people wouldn't choose to go there. I would say the value proposition for this student -- and the state -- is tremendous. And the people have voted with their feet.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, I don't see how there is any contradiction. In fact, this post of yours once again seems to strengthen MY conclusion, not yours. </p>
<p>To follow your logic, of course it is true that Berkeley students find a better value proposition by paying to go to Berkeley than in going to some no-name school on a free ride. But they might have an even better value proposition by going to Stanford while getting the same state tuition subsidy that they would have gotten if they had gone to Berkeley. Again, like I said, it would be the EXACT SAME subsidy that they would have gotten if they had gone to Berkeley, and no higher. That would comprise a fair and portable subsidy. </p>
<p>
[quote]
As an extreme example: If people collect food stamps, would you argue that because there are better alternatives to Safeway -- Whole Foods or gourmet restaurants -- you should be giving subsidies that allow those folks access to these options. Okay, I know, you'll say it should be up to the consumer to decide where they spend their subsidy and suffer or thrive accordingly under the limitation. That's my point too: the Whole Foods or gourmet restaurant folks shouldn't get a higher direct subsidy simply so they can chow on Foie Gras
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, when I have ever said that anybody should get a 'higher" subsidy for choosing a more expensive option? I have always said that your subsidy is your subsidy, and you choose how you want to spend it. If you want to take your food stamps to buy 100 cans of soup at Safeway, or just one fancy load of organic bread at Whole Foods, that's your choice. I am not giving you any more money to go to Whole Foods. BUT, I am also giving you no less money. </p>
<p>In fact, right now, Whole Foods accepts food stamps. And that's exactly the system I would like to have seen with state subsidized education. You want to take your food stamps and blow it all on expensive Whole Foods fare? Fine, do it. I'm not going to force you to shop only in "preferred" stores. They're your food stamps, you do with it whatever you like. </p>
<p>You continually express fear that the elite private schools like HYPSM will jack up tuition prices. Frankly, I find those fears deeply unfounded. After all, I think we can all agree that the top private schools like HYPSM could right now all easily jack up their tuitions by several times their amount and they would still get plenty of willing applicants. Yet they haven't done so. In fact, none of HYPSM are in the list of top 10 most expensive colleges in the country. </p>
<p>The most prestigious and desirable school in the country is almost certainly Harvard. Hence, one might expect that Harvard would have the most expensive tuition in the country. But does it? No. The most expensive school in the country in terms of tuition is George Washington University. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call GW an elite university. {Although to be fair, GW also does lock in tuition for all 4 years for any given undergrad, hence students never have to put with nasty tuition hike surprises}. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/19/most-expensive-colleges-biz-cx_tvr_0119college.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/19/most-expensive-colleges-biz-cx_tvr_0119college.html</a></p>
<p>Again, we have to keep in mind that private universities are in competition with each other. So let's say that I give a $10,000 yearly subsidy to all Californians to go to any school they want, public or private. So then, in response, Stanford jacks up its tuition by $10,000. Fine, but if Harvard doesn't increase its tuition, then those Californians who can get into both Harvard and Stanford will tend to prefer Harvard. That's competition. </p>
<p>The way that Berkeley or any public school wins (some) students against the top private schools is basically through unfair price competition. The state subsidy is only provided if you go to a public school. But if the public school is really that good, then the public school shouldn't need that advantage. It should be able to compete and win on an even playing field. Now, of course, if it cannot win on an even playing field, then it only makes sense to find out why not and then fix it. Public institutions should be subject to the same fair competition that private institutions are subjected to.</p>
<p>In fact, the situation is even more egregious than my post office example. At least one can argue that the post office enjoys preferences to, as you pointed out, provide universal service (although like I said, that's simply justifying one inefficiency by another). But Berkeley makes no compunctions about providing "universal service". Not everybody can study at Berkeley. The vast majority of applicants to Berkeley are rejected. Hence, whatever preference justification (however convoluted) that might exist for the USPS certainly does NOT exist for Berkeley or any other selective public school.</p>