From:  (J Klein)
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Followup-To: soc.college,sci.econ
Organization: Public Macs, Academic Computing, Yale University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:36:08 GMT

> >Two things: 1.  Universities outside the overlap group were increasing
> >costs at approximately the same rates as those inside the group.
> 
> Public universities were actually increasing at a lower rate, I believe.

		I was not arguing about public universities; they have gov't subsidies,
etc.
On the other hand, just about every private university was increasing at
that high rate (and continue to do so, even after the decision), therefore,
overlap was not the only cause.

> >												2.  Besides economic efficiency, there are other issues to
> >consider.  The notion of "need-based" financial aid disappears with this
> >decision.  
> 
> There's no evidence of this being true other than self-serving comments
> made by Overlap members.  (And there were and are many schools that offer
> need-based financial aid that have never been in the Overlap Group.)

		Hey, first thing, out with the ad hominem attacks.  Second, there is
evidence:  ask any financial aid office, and see argument below.

> Universities have always competed for rich students.  Nothing in the
> decision requires them to give financial aid to "rich" students.  A
> college can still choose to refuse to give financial aid to whomever
> it wants.  It just can't be protected from the consequences of that
> decision should another college choose to grant that student financial
> aid.

		Correct.  Universities are not forced de jure to compete for rich
students, only de facto because of competition.  However, de facto results
must be taken into account in a good decision.

> 
> >, a
> >substantial portion of the money that used to go to poor students who
> >couldn't afford to go to an Ivy, now will go to richer students, thus
> >potentially eliminating a class of brilliant but poorer students from
> >accessing the benefits of an Ivy.  
> 
> Once again, assertion without proof.  All this decision means is that
> the poor student might not see uniform offers of $8,000, $8,000, and
> $8,000.  Instead, one college will offer her $6,000, but another will offer
> her $9,000, and a third might offer her $10,000.  You're assuming the
> colleges will continue to grant aid in lockstep, which simply won't be
> true.

		NOT an "assertion without proof" but a logical economic argument. Taken a
fixed amount of resources, if some money is re-allocated to richer students
and therefore away from poorer students, the redistribution now favors the
rich.  This change is a qualitative one, one I would argue is bad.

> 
> >Indeed, since poorer students often have
> >lower SATs and no prep education, the problem of access is exacerbated.
> 
> SATs *are* access.  It's the only way a kid from Inner City Podunk has
> a chance to show that she got as much from her high school as someone who
> was buggered at Exeter.  My straight A's at an unknown public school in
> New Orleans wouldn't have had a chance against a B student in Andover if
> there weren't SATs. 
> 
> And once again, there's nothing in the decision that requires financial
> aid to be tied to SATs.

Your case is relevant but counterfactual.  You may have beaten the
statistics, but most poorer students haven't.  True, financial aid is not
required to be tied to SATs, etc. by the decision, but that is how schools
determine the merit of an applicant and if the applicant would be headed
for success at their school.
Newsgroups: soc.college