It's bizarre to me how accepting we are of the idea that higher education should cost anything let alone be mind-bogglingly expensive. This is wildly successful propaganda. Student loan debt was an explicit political goal [1]:
> "We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat," announced Reagan advisor Roger A. Freeman during a press conference on Oct. 29, 1970. Freeman, an economics professor at Stanford, was also an advisor to President Richard Nixon.
> "We have to be selective on who we allow to go through [higher education]," Freeman added.
Poverty is intentional and a necessary condition for capitalism. It creates a malleable and compliant labor force. Student debt, medical debt, housing debt. All of it only exists to make a handful of extremely wealthy people slightly more wealthy.
Modern universities aren't really about education at all. They're simply hedge funds in a trenchcoat.
Harvard, for example, makes what? Half a billion in tuition per year? But they have upwards of $50 billion in their endowment. The interest alone could fund the entire university.
In-state University of California, Riverside tuition is roughly $13k/year. This isn't mind-bogglingly expensive IMO. Less than 25% of student debt is from public colleges, with the majority due to expensive private schools. Most of my friends also worked part-time during undergrad, to further lower their loan burden.
You aren't making this point directly, but I think it's worth pointing out: not everyone is entitled to attend Harvard, Princeton, (etc.) any more than they are entitled to a Maserati.
There are, and should always be, affordable public options, so that anyone who wants a college degree can get one. We need to stop romanticizing elite universities, and acknowledge that you can get a great education, with hard work, at almost any university.
Harvard's endowment is $50 billion, and its expenses in 2023 were $6.25 billion [1]. To fund that, the endowment will need 12.5% annual interest, which is impossible. Tuition revenue is not remotely suitable enough for Harvard's operational expenses.
Again, people don't understand how endowments work. When endows a specific program at Harvard, their money must be used for that program alone. The funds can't be sent to the general pool for the entire university.
There are many ways to criticize wealthy educational institutions, but calling them "hedge funds" makes no sense. Which hedge fund subsidizes their clients' expenses with donations?
> "We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat," announced Reagan advisor Roger A. Freeman during a press conference on Oct. 29, 1970. Freeman, an economics professor at Stanford, was also an advisor to President Richard Nixon.
> "We have to be selective on who we allow to go through [higher education]," Freeman added.
Poverty is intentional and a necessary condition for capitalism. It creates a malleable and compliant labor force. Student debt, medical debt, housing debt. All of it only exists to make a handful of extremely wealthy people slightly more wealthy.
Modern universities aren't really about education at all. They're simply hedge funds in a trenchcoat.
Harvard, for example, makes what? Half a billion in tuition per year? But they have upwards of $50 billion in their endowment. The interest alone could fund the entire university.
[1]: https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/threat-of-educate...