Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 373769)

Second, my understanding is that the schools with huge endowments don't spend that money on operating expenses.

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 373778)

It appears that they spend that endowment solely on investing to create a larger endowment.

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 373778)

It appears that they spend that endowment solely on investing to create a larger endowment.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 373769)

I don't understand this.

First, why do other schools without huge endowments have to try to match Harvard and Stanford and the few other top schools? Why can't they offer a good education without the star faculty for a much better price? It's not like everyone can go to Harvard. In fact, most can't.

Second, my understanding is that the schools with huge endowments don't spend that money on operating expenses.

Third, some schools that might not need to charge a top tuition do so because it acts as a signal that the school is of top quality, much like Banana Republic charges too much for crappy shoes instead of adding a normal margin, at which price people would conclude that the shoes are shite. They can get away with this because higher education is a market where outputs are hard to measure, and where one component of it -- reputation* -- is affected by how much you charge.

* Oh, for the days of the Yahoo! boards.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 373784)

They do indeed spend a sizable chunk of the funds on operating expenses, and a sizable chunk on scholarships, which, of course, cover operating expenses.

A big difference between the well-endowed and less-well-endowed schools is student / faculty ratio. If you take Sebby's advice, and look for more outputs, you increase class size. That way, you can afford top faculty, because more tuition is produced per class. That, of course, leads to a decline in reputation and quality, because, at the end of the day, class size is one of the most significant determinants of quality in education.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 373791)

the "best school" in michigan has large UG classes. it's rep is built largely on Graduate schools.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 373757)

Harvard's not competing with Penn State. So the fat endowments will always have the best facilities and professors. So what? They're unique. In the lower tiers, there's a lot of room for cutting.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 373791)

the "best school" in michigan has large UG classes. it's rep is built largely on Graduate schools.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 373795)

I don't think there is too big a difference in what we're saying. You are looking at Penn State, Michigan and other large and pretty uniformly prestigious state schools and saying that they could cut some spending and bring in more kids and reduce their tuition burden (and you're saying the government should force it with their "stick").

I'm saying that if they start cutting expenses (in the form of classes you deem unnecessary, facilities and professors' salaries), those schools will look more and more like crappy SUNY schools. And to the extent you want the option of paying a lot less for tuition to get a pared down college experience, that option already exists for you.

TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 373795)

I don't think there is too big a difference in what we're saying. You are looking at Penn State, Michigan and other large and pretty uniformly prestigious state schools and saying that they could cut some spending and bring in more kids and reduce their tuition burden (and you're saying the government should force it with their "stick").

I'm saying that if they start cutting expenses (in the form of classes you deem unnecessary, facilities and professors' salaries), those schools will look more and more like crappy SUNY schools. And to the extent you want the option of paying a lot less for tuition to get a pared down college experience, that option already exists for you.

TM

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 373800)

SUNY really is a good example of Sebby run schools.

Sebby, might I suggest SUNY-New Paltz for your kids? Some of the brightest minds in Ulster county get trained there.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 373613)

I am now beginning to despair of ever being able to vote for a Governor in Illinois who isn't a corrupt, thieving bastard in my lifetime

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 373801)

i was actually talking Michigan State. i had no idea the directional schools (Eastern, Central, Western) were so much cheaper. this has actualy helped me work through a problem.

Do you guys hear that: the PB has actually helped solve a real world problem.