Why is Berkeley ranked relatively low?

<p>
[quote]
Yet students don't get any public taxpayer tuition support to attend Stanford. Why not? Taxpayers put money into the system but get a tuition subsidy back only by going to a public school. Why?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, and by the way as an addition to what I wrote above, if you read the Chronicle article above, they do. My point is that California shouldn't be subsidizing UC or Cal State students in terms of tuition assistance at a much lower level simply because Stanford, for instance, charges a high manufacturer's suggested retail price.</p>

<p>Taxpayers shouldn't necessarily subsidize Stanford precisely because it is private - the government has no direct control over it. If you and I are paying money for something, I think we ought to have some degree of a voice over it. If taxpayers as a whole wanted to change the UC system, I think it might be done with relative ease (at least theoretically). On the other hand, even if everybody in the country wants Stanford to do something, they have no obligation to do it, as they are a private entity.</p>

<p>You can make the argument that by passing laws that create some basic college standards that must be followed, all colleges can get govt funding - I believe many states have this type of program for K-12 education. However, I, and evidently many other people believe that private individuals should be able to do what they want, without the government telling them things. On the same token, they shouldn't be expecting, or getting, money from the government.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Taxpayers shouldn't necessarily subsidize Stanford precisely because it is private - the government has no direct control over it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But we do, effectively, subsidize private schools through research grants, tuition assistance, and non-profit status.</p>

<p>
[quote]
HBS's student population is just 1,700, a far cry from Berkeley's 24k students. Do you think HBS would still be thye same if it would have 24k students?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like vicissitudes said, you missed the point. HBS is huge * relative to other business schools.* In particular, it's huge compared to, say, the Haas School. So why isn't Haas ranked higher than HBS? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Charge 50K for something (on paper), but in actuality only charge your very high-end customers full freight. The rest, defray costs by grants some of which come from the government. In essence, then you are asking the government to help the customers get to full retail. Why should govt. pay full retail or contribute to the paying of full retail vs. just paying students at the same level of subsidy? Otherwise one incentives the system towards providing an inflated yet hidden subsidy to private schools. Also, educational institutions public or private get non-profit status so de-facto are subsidized anyway. Why should they get it coming and going?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, it seems to me that your ideas are actually far more supportive of * my* ideas, not yours. </p>

<p>After all, think of it this way. You talk about charging full fare to the top consumers - in other words, price discrimination. Ok, fine, but do you think that Berkeley (or any other public school) is doing that? I know rich people who went to Berkeley, * and got the state subsidy anyway*. One might ask why should a family of multimillionaires only have to pay a subsidized price to send their children to Berkeley? </p>

<p>It seems to me that what you are really arguing for is a system of progressive subsidization. Well, that's fully compatible with a voucher system. For example, even right now, municipalities that provide private K-12 school vouchers predominantly do so for the poor. Similarly, food stamps are available only to the poor. </p>

<p>As for question of why private schools should get a subsidy coming and going, I don't see the relevance of that question. After all, one could also ask why a public school should also get a subsidy coming and going? Why - just because it's public? Right now, Berkeley takes a large state subsidy to defray the costs of tuition for its instate students, and also gets significant research dollars from the government. That's a 2-way subsidy right there. Why is it OK for Berkeley to get that, but not a private school? One might argue that because the government already provides a tuition subsidy, Berkeley shouldn't also need government research dollars. </p>

<p>The question of where to spend government research dollars on a particular school is an entirely separate question from how to deal with tuition. After all, plenty of public and private schools don't receive any government research dollars. Community colleges, for example, don't receive government research funding, and they're public. Private schools like DeVry or Heald College (which are basically private-school equivalents of community college) don't receive government research funding. </p>

<p>Whether a particular institution receives government research grants has to do with whether the government believes that the research will be best performed at that institution in question. I don't see why you insist on linking these 2 questions. For example, the Santa Fe Institute and other privately run research institutes win numerous research grants from the government. Yet they don't offer any degree programs for any students. What about that? Why is it OK for these private organizations to win government research grants, but not OK when Stanford or Harvard does it? </p>

<p>
[quote]
You didn't understand my point. People get MFAs and become soda jerks. (I met a failing graphic artist who had gone to Stanford and was going to become a copier salesperson). Duh. It happens up and down the educational system, and any idiot can see that the benefits of education are often indirect or not captured in obvious economics terms and other times don't exist at all.</p>

<p>My point is tying the subsidies to institutions that on an overall basis achieve tremendous public good makes more sense than letting subsidies spur sexy yet arguably no public good on a much more obvious basis.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh? I still think you missed the point that public schools * also produce plenty of what you would surely term 'economic waste'. Or more to the point, it seems to me that you think that public schools produce more "public good" (however you define that) than private schools do. I see no evidence of that. In fact, if anything, I would argue that the reverse may be true. It is * precisely * because public school students don't pay full fare, but rather stick the taxpayer with part of the tuition tab, that disincentivizes them to take full economic advantage of their education. In other words, moral hazard. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The biotech industry as we know it started at the University of California, San Francisco when H. Boyer co-developed gene splicing and spun out Genentech to become the first recombinant DNA technology-based firm. The industry now employs nearly 100,000 people in the Bay Area alone.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, once again, you're muddying the waters by invoking research. That has nothing to do with tuition subsidies. After all, Boyer wasn't a student. He was a professor and researcher. So the fact that UCSF did or did not provide any tuition subsidies to any of its students seems to have little or not effect on whether or how biotechnology would have been discovered. </p>

<p>Let me put it to you another way. If UCSF had been a private university, do you think that would have stopped Boyer from founding biotech? Need I go through the numerous groundbreaking inventions that were discovered at private univeristies? Or more to the point, if UCSF had been a private research institute like Santa Fe, again, do you think that would have stopped Boyer? </p>

<p>To repeat, the issue at hand is what to do about tuition subsidies *. Whether the government chooses to provide research funding is a * separate question. Don't conflate the two. There is no connection between them. Some public schools get immense research funding. Some private schools also get immense research funding. Some public schools (i.e. the community colleges) get hardly any research funding. Some private schools too. Research is a separate issue from tuition. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Point above regarding non-profit status.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And my point above regarding private research institutes.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, that's what Stanford says, and there is a great kernel of truth, but there was great contribution from Berkeley in a secondary relationship and many other institutions (University of Illinois Champagne Urbana, e.g.). Stanford also co-developed the recombinant DNA tech above-mentioned though it was Boyer that left his lab at UC and went commercial.</p>

<p>In terms of your public-private distinctions at the research level, it gets really hard to parse, and I don't see this fact leading to your conclusions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Aha, so you admit that it's hard to parse. To translate that, you admit that there is no evidence that private schools are no worse than public schools when it comes to providing research that aids the public good. That's my point. </p>

<p>In fact, your analysis doesn't lead to *your * conclusion, which is specifically that public schools are supposedly better than private schools when it comes to research. I see no evidence of this. And apparently neither do you. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Petroleum just put out a huge tender to MIT, Cambridge, University of London, and other institutions public and private to undertake a $500 million multi-year biofuels research project. Berkeley, with UICU as a junior partner, won that contract.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And similarly, numerous private grants have been won by private universities. What's your point? </p>

<p>
[quote]
I just think you have a bias against a public system, that you say because research funding is often public, let's go ahead and privatize it all. And I think you overemphasize the value of private, versus public, in education and research.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, no, I don't have a bias against public systems. If anything, you have a bias * for* public systems. Specifically, I think that private competition has been proven to work quite well in providing important services.</p>

<p>Consider the analogy of military procurement. The government puts out a military contract. And all of the private contractors bid on it. Sure, it's not a perfect system, but it is also undeniable that the US has, by far, the best military technology in the world, despite the fact that no military contractor is "public". For those who would quibble about it, I would just ask a simple question - which other country out there has better military technology? Hence, you don't need "public" institutions to obtain a very high level of service. Similarly, like I said, there are no such things as "public" supermarkets or "public" restaurants. The government provides food subidies (i.e. food stamps) to the poor. Yet I think no-one would dispute that the food security in the country is excellent and that the country certainly doesn't suffer from a lack of food (in fact, if anything, the country suffers from too much food). </p>

<p>But it is also true that we are where we are. Nobody, least of all me, is advocating that we shut down Berkeley right now. Obviously Berkeley is built and established as a major research center. It's sunk cost. So we might as well take advantage of it by continuing to have it compete for research grants. What I am saying is that there was another way. We could have probably obtained the same results if we were to have just taken the same government tuition subsidies and offered them as vouchers. </p>

<p>But putting that issue aside, I also don't see any reason why public schools should be preferred over private schools for government research grants, as you seem to be arguing. If a public school has the best grant proposal, then they should win the grant. If not, then not. And that's exactly the way it ought to be. You shouldn't get an edge just because you're public. The key question ought to be who do we think is going to do the best possible research, and whether they happen to work for a public institution or a private one ought to be irrelevent. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The lawsuit that Stanford had to fend off for defrauding the Federal govt. occurred because Stanford charged significantly higher overhead charges on its Federal research than others (esp. UC) did. You could argue that UC is a bargain in research, that is was foolish for not charging higher overheads itself, or that it should strive to provide gilded labs for its researchers. I would hope you'd argue the first point.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh come now. And you don't think that fraud and dishonesty don't happen at public schools? What about the scandal at Lawrence Berkeley when it was discovered that researchers actually fabricated evidence regarding the creation of new elements? What about the cold fusion scandal at the University of Utah? </p>

<p>*Of course * there will be dishonesty in a private institution. There will also be dishonesty in a public institution. Nobody is saying that either is perfect. That is why it is fair that they be forced to compete against each other without preferences. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Taxpayers shouldn't necessarily subsidize Stanford precisely because it is private - the government has no direct control over it. If you and I are paying money for something, I think we ought to have some degree of a voice over it. If taxpayers as a whole wanted to change the UC system, I think it might be done with relative ease (at least theoretically). On the other hand, even if everybody in the country wants Stanford to do something, they have no obligation to do it, as they are a private entity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're ignoring market forces. Private institutions change * all the time* in reaction to market forces. After all, Stanford still has to compete for the best students just like any other university does. If they don't, they will decline as a university, and in extreme cases, may go out of business (and many private colleges have gone out of business). Just like any private company has to continually change in response to changes in customers. A private company that continues to sell the same products that customers no longer want will inevitably go out of business. Hence, companies that insisted on selling horse buggies when people were switching to cars all went out of business. Most of the large companies of 50 years ago don't even exist today. </p>

<p>Public institutions are different. Surely you've heard people say that it's impossible to actually shut down a government program. While I wouldn't say that it's 'impossible', the fact is, it's not easy. Why? Politics. Any public institution invariably builds a political constituency (i.e. the employees, the suppliers, anybody else who benefits from the existence of the program) and that constituency will leverage its political power to enforce the existence of the program even if the program is no longer economically justified. This is precisely what happened with the Tennessee Valley Authority. The TVA was set up during the Great Depression as a government-run institution to spread electric power to the then largely unpowered Tennessee Valley. That task was completed by probably the 1950's and certainly by the 1960's. Certainly today, electric power is freely available within the Tennessee Valley. Yet the TVA * still exists today* despite the fact that its original mission had been completed decades ago.</p>

<p>Look, don't get me wrong. I have no issue with the concept of public institutions * per se*. My question is why they should enjoy preferences over private institutions. In the case of research grants, if Berkeley submits a better grant proposal than Stanford does, then Berkeley should get the grant. But vice versa is also true. I certainly don't see that Berkeley, or any other public institution has any 'monopoly' on the public good. Similarly, if California taxpayers who had been paying into the system want to then transfer their state tuition subsidy to attend Stanford rather than Berkeley, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do that. Berkeley and Stanford ought to compete against each other on their own merits, not by some unfair mechanism. Berkeley right now enjoys an unfair preference in the sense that California taxpayers who attend Berkeley get a tuition subsidy, but California taxpayers who attend Stanford do not. </p>

<p>As an example of unfair public preferences, consider your postal mailbox. Do you realize that it is actually * illegal * for any private shipping company (i.e. UPS, Fedex, etc.) to actually deliver anything into people's mailboxes even though it is the people themselves who have to pay for their own mailboxes? How much more useful and convenient would private shipping firms be if they actually had the option of delivering items to your mailbox, as opposed to always needing to find somebody at your door to sign off on a delivery? The USPS doesn't just have legal exclusivity over the mailbox that you paid for. The USPS is also exempt from zoning laws, vehicle-licensing fees, and other strictures that private firms have to obey. Nor are these private firms notably less efficient than the USPS is. In fact, they are arguably * more* efficient, to the point that government workers often times use UPS or Fedex to send documents/packages to each other rather than use the USPS. In fact, I seem to recall reading about how even some USPS managers used private delivery services for their personal shipping. But of course, the USPS continues to wield its political power in maintaining its privileges. </p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. If Berkeley does provide a competitive education along the lines of Stanford, then there should be no problem with giving Stanford students (who are California state residents) the same tuition subsidy that Berkeley students get. What I mean by that is that if each California resident taxpayer, say, a $10,000 state subsidy (or whatever the figure is) to go to Berkeley, then they should also receive a $10,000 state subsidy to go to Stanford. (I think this should also quell one of Bedhead's possible objections - as I am not asking for the state to cover Stanford's entire tuition, I am just asking the state to cover whatever costs it would have covered if the student had gone to a public school, and if Stanford jacks up its tuition, the student is responsible for topping up his tuition). What's wrong with that? If Berkeley offers a better education than Stanford does, then people will continue to prefer Berkeley anyway. If it does not, then we have to ask why not and then figure out ways to make Berkeley better.</p>

<p>Consider the situation from an equity standpoint. Right now, as I'm sure we would all agree, there are some California middle-class students who got into Stanford, but couldn't afford it, and so are now at Berkeley even though they don't really want to be there. They are at Berkeley just because they need that tuition subsidy, which they can get only if they go to a public school. But that begs the question why? Why is that tuition subsidy linked to a public school? Shouldn't it be instead linked to the taxpayer to do with as he pleases? After all, the taxpayer paid for that subsidy through his taxes. Why shouldn't he get it back if he wants to go to a private school? If those guys had been able to use their subsidy at Stanford, they probably would have gone there. In other words, Berkeley enjoys an unfair advantage that private schools don't get to have. Competition should be fair.</p>

<p>
[quote]
See, once again, you're muddying the waters by invoking research. That has nothing to do with tuition subsidies. After all, Boyer wasn't a student. He was a professor and researcher.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Aha, so you admit that it's hard to parse. To translate that, you admit that there is no evidence that private schools are no worse than public schools when it comes to providing research that aids the public good. That's my point.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>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. In either case, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. 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.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Similarly, if California taxpayers who had been paying into the system want to then transfer their state tuition subsidy to attend Stanford rather than Berkeley, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But should they be paid more of a direct tuition subsidy? That's really the question on the table. You say it's fine for there to be price discrimination, and I agree. But I don't think that state tuition assistance should be subsidizing the higher prices charged. Let me give you a simple example so you can understand my point. A guy sells an ice sculpture machine that costs him $10,000 to make. He lists full retail price at $100,000, but knows his average price paid by consumers is going to be $60,000 because some wealthy people will be much less price sensitive and pay full freight and others will buy the product through bargain channels. But then the state comes along and decides it will kick in purchase assistance for the ice sculpture purchases. What's a rational businessman do? He ups the list to $150,000, and starts making $90,000 on his machines because the state is helping people purchase the things. I know from intimate experience that higher education pricing works this way, in terms of the "list price" vs. expected average price.</p>

<p>
[quote]
As an example of unfair public preferences, consider your postal mailbox. Do you realize that it is actually illegal for any private shipping company (i.e. UPS, Fedex, etc.) to actually deliver anything into people's mailboxes even though it is the people themselves who have to pay for their own mailboxes? How much more useful and convenient would private shipping firms be if they actually had the option of delivering items to your mailbox, as opposed to always needing to find somebody at your door to sign off on a delivery?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><a href="I%20think%20this%20should%20also%20quell%20one%20of%20Bedhead's%20possible%20objections%20-%20as%20I%20am%20not%20asking%20for%20the%20state%20to%20cover%20Stanford's%20entire%20tuition,%20I%20am%20just%20asking%20the%20state%20to%20cover%20whatever%20costs%20it%20would%20have%20covered%20if%20the%20student%20had%20gone%20to%20a%20public%20school,%20and%20if%20Stanford%20jacks%20up%20its%20tuition,%20the%20student%20is%20responsible%20for%20topping%20up%20his%20tuition">quote</a>.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oops. As to the example above about the ice machines, you got it. I should have taken more time to read that paragraph initially. So we are in agreement.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Consider the situation from an equity standpoint. Right now, as I'm sure we would all agree, there are some California middle-class students who got into Stanford, but couldn't afford it, and so are now at Berkeley even though they don't really want to be there. They are at Berkeley just because they need that tuition subsidy, which they can get only if they go to a public school. But that begs the question why? Why is that tuition subsidy linked to a public school? Shouldn't it be instead linked to the taxpayer to do with as he pleases? After all, the taxpayer paid for that subsidy through his taxes. Why shouldn't he get it back if he wants to go to a private school? If those guys had been able to use their subsidy at Stanford, they probably would have gone there. In other words, Berkeley enjoys an unfair advantage that private schools don't get to have. Competition should be fair.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Now, I agree that stopping someone after 6 years is reasonable, perhaps before that. Do you think that the 60% four-year graduation rate (as I think it was, last I checked the CDS) is a) because students want to stay at Berkeley longer, or b) because they weren't able to take the classes they wanted and have to stay longer to finish their degree officially? I've heard b) more often. In fact, I'd always thought that was the root of such a low 4-year graduation rate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think it's a combination of several things:</p>

<ol>
<li>Students staying for 5+ years</li>
<li>Students dropping out due to weeding / other reasons</li>
<li>Students needing to finish a class or two</li>
<li>Students who switch majors too often or decide on a major too late</li>
<li>Students who need to stay an extra semester for various reasons like having studied abroad</li>
</ol>

<p>Unit cap helps out #1, they're starting programs (along with unit cap for impacted majors) to help #4, and UC Extension is there for #3. So I'm hoping to see the graduation rate do better in the near future.</p>

<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"&gt;http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/19/most-expensive-colleges-biz-cx_tvr_0119college.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/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>

<p>
[quote]
Now, I agree that stopping someone after 6 years is reasonable, perhaps before that. Do you think that the 60% four-year graduation rate (as I think it was, last I checked the CDS) is a) because students want to stay at Berkeley longer, or b) because they weren't able to take the classes they wanted and have to stay longer to finish their degree officially? I've heard b) more often. In fact, I'd always thought that was the root of such a low 4-year graduation rate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In addition to what vicissitudes said, I would say that unit caps will actually be able to help to solve problem (b). After all, there really are some students who are basically lollygagging around and are hence occupying class seats that should have gone to other students who are actually trying to graduate on time and hence really need those seats. </p>

<p>I think that that's what it really boils down to: a matter of equity. If you're not serious about graduating on time, then I think it's fair that you give up your slots to somebody who actually is serious about graduating on time. The only question remaining is to then figure out a way to distinguish between the two. I return back to what I stated before - I think that students should have to pay full fare (hence, no state subsidy) after a certain number of semesters. In other words, they should be presented with the full price signal. A unit cap could work too (although it is less efficient than a pricing mechanism).</p>

<p>But the bottom line is that this is not a game we're playing here. You go to Berkeley not to just camp out and wallow around, but to get a degree and then get out. Why? Because there are plenty of other people behind you who also want to get a degree from Berkeley. By just camping out at Berkeley, you are preventing somebody else from coming in and completing his education.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And what would these benefits be exactly, that the private schools don't provide?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As a whole, the publics provide much more access across the board with the end result being many more educated folks, and that is a public good. In the case of Berkeley, they do that in the context of a first-class research institution. They provide research outcomes, particularly on the UC level, that help ensure in the case of California the state's economic primacy. It is more so the quantity, not necessarily so much the kind (though there is that too), of things provided that private colleges didn't and don't provide across the board.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I know you did, and I acknowledged that in a later mea culpa as follows. And this is non-controversy between us:</p>

<p>Your quote:
"I am just asking the state to cover whatever costs it would have covered if the student had gone to a public school, and if Stanford jacks up its tuition, the student is responsible for topping up his tuition)." </p>

<p>My quote:
"Oops. As to the example above about the ice machines, you got it. I should have taken more time to read that paragraph initially. So we are in agreement."</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is more so the quantity, not necessarily so much the kind (though there is that too), of things provided that private colleges didn't and don't provide across the board.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Just what are these "things" which Berkeley supposedly provides its undergrad that the top privates don't?</p>

<p>
[quote]
As a whole, the publics provide much more access across the board with the end result being many more educated folks, and that is a public good.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How so? Again, we're not talking about the open-enrollment public community colleges. I could agree that those do in fact provide a public good that the private schools do not. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the highly selective public schools. What exactly are they providing that the private schools do not? Berkeley is far harder to get into than the vast majority of private schools out there. </p>

<p>I said it before, I'll say it again. There are no "public supermarkets" or "public restaurants" out there, yet it surely seems to me that Americans aren't lacking for "access to food". Far from it, in fact. So if the private sector can handle the basic human need for food quite well, why can't it handle the demand for a top-notch education also? </p>

<p>
[quote]
They provide research outcomes, particularly on the UC level, that help ensure in the case of California the state's economic primacy. It is more so the quantity, not necessarily so much the kind (though there is that too), of things provided that private colleges didn't and don't provide across the board.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am not aware of any research outcomes that the top private sector could't provide. It sure seems to me that the research of the top private schools is pretty darn good. So is the research of the top private research organizations, such as Santa Fe. </p>

<p>But let's put research aside. Again, my core question, which still has not been answered, is why Berkeley or any selective public school should enjoy any sort of state-run preferences over the private sector. If the public universities really are as good as you say they are, then they should have no problem in competing and winning in a fair competition. In fact, to a large extent, they already do. For example, I have always agreed that Berkeley is a better choice for undergrads than are the vast majority of private schools out there, simply because the vast majority of private schools are lower-tier schools. So even without preferences, Berkeley could surely beat them. The question is, why can't Berkeley beat the top private schools (i.e. HYPSM) without preferences in competing for the top undergrads? </p>

<p>The bottom line is this. As a California taxpayer, you put money into the system. Hence, when you (or more specifically, your children) go to college, you should be able to get that money back to do with as you wish. It's your money. Just like you can take your food stamps and use them at the cheapest market you can find or use them at Whole Foods, you should also be able to take your college voucher and use them at any school, public or private, that is willing to admit you. I see no economically efficient reason for you to be restricted in the usage of that money (which is YOUR money).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Are Harvard's science/I.T./engineering departments as strong and as prestigious as Berkeley's? No.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really? I think you'll find that Harvard's life and social sciences are, at the very least, just as strong and prestigious as Berkeley's.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I got your point. but did u get mine?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, it seems to me that you STILL did not get my point. </p>

<p>
[quote]
How big are Harvard's science/IT/engineering departments? are they any bigger than or as bog as Berkeley's? No. Are Harvard's science/I.T./engineering departments as strong and as prestigious as Berkeley's? No.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So? What exactly does that have to do with anything? Since when was anybody ever talking about Harvard's engineering department?</p>

<p>MIT's undergrad engineering program is bigger than Berkeley's. Stanford's undergrad engineering program is smaller than Berkeley's. Yet each of those undergrad engineering departments is at least as good as Berkeley's, if not better. Bottom line - size does not dictate quality. THAT is the point. </p>

<p>Now your point was?</p>

<p>joshua007:
[quote]
I got your point. but did u get mine?

[/quote]

sakky:
[quote]
What exactly does that have to do with anything? ...Now your point was?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Instead of attacking each other's posts, can't you guys just present your ideas and let them stand on their own. No need to resort to bully tactics here you guys.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your statement is absurd. Because of the success of Berkeley as a state institution, it could be even better and so should be private is in effect what you are saying. The point to be taken is that Berkeley has done spectacularly well as a state institution, not in spite of being a state institution. Your statements reflect an a priori bias against state institutions. For you, state = inefficient and then you trot out the most extreme example of state failure. Don't you see that there are egregious examples of private failure too? Take Enron as a very minor one.</p>

<p>Why should Berkeley get any special dibs on research grants? It doesn't. But in the cases that it competes on its own merits and wins them, it often charges less for things like administrative overhead. In general, actually, the govt. gets a great deal.</p>

<p>Tuition subsidies shouldn't go to publics alone: I said it before and I'll say it again: In terms of tuition support, students at privates get it too. I just don't think it should be given at a higher level than it is at publics for the economic reasons pointed out above. That's all. You and I seemed to agree with this. Why bring it up?</p>

<p>Berkeley does compete fairly for students and win.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Your statement is absurd. Because of the success of Berkeley as a state institution, it could be even better and so should be private is in effect what you are saying. The point to be taken is that Berkeley has done spectacularly well as a state institution, not in spite of being a state institution. Your statements reflect an a priori bias against state institutions. For you, state = inefficient and then you trot out the most extreme example of state failure.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If I am really so a-priori biased against public schools, then why do I constantly praise Berkeley's graduate programs? After all, they are public too. I have also consistently stated the UCSF is the best medical school in the West Coast (i.e. better than Stanford), yet UCSF is public. </p>

<p>My "criticisms" (if you want to call them that) of Berkeley tend to be restricted towards the Berkeley * undergraduate * program. Is that surprising? I think there is no dispute that Berkeley's undergrad program is simply not as good as its graduate programs. Would anybody care to disagree? I have often wondered why Berkeley's undergrad program can't be as good as its graduate programs. Yet even so, I would STILL say that the Berkeley undergrad program, for all its problems, is still better than the vast majority of other undergrad programs out there. </p>

<p>And besides, if you dig through my other posts, I routinely state that the public schools in other countries are often times by far the best schools in those countries. Oxford and Cambridge are easily the best schools in the UK, yet they are public. The Grandes Ecoles are easily the best schools in France, yet they are public. I have no problem whatsoever in admitting this. </p>

<p>So exactly how am I "a-priori" biased against public schools? If anything, I would argue that YOU are a-priori biased FOR public schools. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Don't you see that there are egregious examples of private failure too? Take Enron as a very minor one.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course! But the private sector has a self-correcting mechanism: * bankruptcy *. Your example actually serves to reinforce my point once again: Enron * went bankrupt * and is no longer a going concern. In fact, private companies disappear all the time when they're not competitive. But public institutions hardly ever do. Plenty of private colleges have gone bankrupt and disappeared. How many public colleges do? </p>

<p>Take Amtrak. Not only is it a * monopoly* in terms of passenger rail service, it is a * rare monopoly that loses money*. How many private monopolies actually lose money? How many billions has the government sank into Amtrak, with no end in sight? A private company that consistently loses money like that would have disappeared years ago. But public institutions can't go bankrupt. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Tuition subsidies shouldn't go to publics alone: I said it before and I'll say it again: In terms of tuition support, students at privates get it too. I just don't think it should be given at a higher level than it is at publics for the economic reasons pointed out above. That's all. You and I seemed to agree with this. Why bring it up?</p>

<p>Berkeley does compete fairly for students and win.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, no it does NOT compete fairly. And I bring it up because I think you know that Berkeley students get greater tuition support than do students at private schools. So let's equalize them. That would be fair. After all, right now, a California resident pays taxes to Sacramento, and he gets less of it back if he goes to HYPSM than if he goes to California public school. This is especially clear if he goes to, say, Harvard. After all, I think there is little dispute that the state of California pays almost nothing in terms of tuition support to Harvard (after all why would it?). Yet if a California resident who has been paying taxes into the system this whole time wants to go to Harvard, why shouldn't he get some of his tax money back to do so? THAT is the unfair advantage. </p>

<p>Since we seem to agree that no school should have an unfair government funding advantage, then what is the dispute?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yet even so, I would STILL say that the Berkeley undergrad program, for all its problems, is still better than the vast majority of other undergrad programs out there.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do me a favor, Sakky, and name 3 things, or 5 if you want, that Berkeley could do to better manage itself and make it have as good as undergrad as its graduate programs.</p>