Did you read this exchange from the beginning? I specifically mentioned it when I said, in comment #2,

Second, as my UCLA example showed, even where there is a large amount of money given to a University many times that does not result in a lower tuition fee. So even in cases where a University has many low income students - and as a student at a UC school, I can tell you that the amount of low income students is certainly not large - giving large amount of money to that University, either through government subsidies or private money, is certainly no guarantee that tuition will drop, all in all, becoming a system that primarily benefits the rich, at the poor person’s expense.

I added the emphasis specifically on the part that pertains to UCLA. In addition, a tax-free status is a form of subsidy; under normal circumstances if I give you money the government taxes that money, yet if I give a University money than that money is not taxed and can be written off. So in that case, the government is still subsidizing that institution by exempting it from normal taxation, an indirect way of giving that institution more (tax revenue) money.

With that said, that is still not germane to my overall point. My overall point with the UCLA example is that tuition costs and assistance for poor students are at best loosely tied to the amount of money the University receives. Even the richest Universities like Harvard still only help a handful of students yet receive tax money, either directly or indirectly, from the much larger body of taxpayers.

Let me ask you a very direct question since you say you are a beneficiary of the cal grant program: what do you consider more helpful for the poor, having the government subsidies Universities and than crossing your fingers in the hope that they may pass some of that money on to poor and middle class students or having the government directly fund more cal grant programs that are specifically tailored to the poor and middle class?

Remember, this isn’t an issue of whether or not the University gets funded. In both scenarios the Universities are going to get funded, the only difference is that in my scenario it is truly a ‘help the poor and middle class students first’ program, where in the current scenario it is a ‘help an institution that primarily caters to the rich and already well educated first’ program.

In my case, I would like to see that money directed to more cal grants that directly benefit the poor and middle class instead of having it directed to Universities. So unless that happens, I am always going to see the picket lines for more funding for Universities as just a way for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer, but in the process using the handful of poor minority students that went to that University as their poster children.

Also, I don’t know about you, but the Cal Grant I got from the California Student Aid Commission covered my fees/tuition for all four years of my undergraduate education. I know the Cal Grant might not cover so much these days, but I basically did have that voucher you wrote about above.

Thanks again for responding. First let me say that all taxes hurt the economy, whether you tax the rich or you tax the poor, they all have some negative affect on the economy (just look at what was happening here in California when the tax burden got too high, businesses, entrepreneurs, were all leaving California in high numbers). So even if the rich are taxed at higher rates, that tax rate still has some negative affect on the overall economy, of which the poor person is a very real part of.

However, there are circumstances where the benefits of taxation outweigh its negatives, resulting in an overall boom to the economy. For example, if those tax revenues are used to pay for roads, for police officers, and military. They all have such an overwhelming positive affect on the economy that it justifies the taxation (to a point, there is such a thing as too much good roads, too much police, etc).

On the other hand, when you use that tax money to give to an institution of which the poor are a very very small part of, than you have in effect increased income inequality. You ask about the middle class students at these Universities, well I ask you about the overwhelmingly larger number of middle class -and poor - families that will be disproportionately hurt by a larger taxation on the economy. What about them?

And all of this without even questioning your flawed premise that greater University subsidy means a lower tuition or greater help for middle class and poor students. Remember, in many instances - for example UCLA above - a larger subsidy did not translate into a lower level of tuition. Or in the Harvard example, greater subsidies only translated to a small fraction of the student body benefiting. So in those circumstances, even the middle class at these Universities got screwed, all in all, compounding the problem of inequality.

With that said, if I were governor, the way I would structure the system is in one hand increase tuition for all students, thereby decreasing the tax burden of all state citizens and in the other hand use a fraction of that money to help low income families, whether they be middle or lower class. This has the added benefit of directly subsidizing the poor instead of through the -often very inefficient - middle man of Universities. So under my plan the poor and middle class students at these Universities would most likely wind up with even more assistance than is currently done under the current method.

If subsidies are your goal, direct subsidies are almost always the more efficient method. So if you want to subsidies poor students who can’t afford education, directly subsidies them, not some institution that primarily caters to the rich and already well educated.

i’ll start by saying that this is not an issue where our positions seem to diverge greatly. but i still feel the need to say the following:

first, i think it problematic to ignore the working class students who are already at universities. though they may be them minority, they really do struggle with tuition. you’ve been talking about subsidies for tuition reduction, but it seems like students are protesting to keep tuition at the same level.

when i was at ucsb a couple of years ago, the governor was trying to implement tuition increases. while the students could have benefited from decreased tuition, there was the governor trying to increase it every year for the next five years. the issue of tuition increases became big rallying point for chicano/a students, most of whom were from working class backgrounds.

let’s please not ignore the struggles of the working class chicano/a students who are already in the UC system and how they might benefit from reduced tuition.

second, university subsidies are not only used to lower tuition. while this can be a benefit of subsidies, they can also be used to offer greater financial aid packages to working class students.

finally, while everyone’s taxes might contribute to university subsidies, let’s not forget that everyone is taxed at different rates. people with lower incomes are taxed less than the middle and upper classes. so this is not quite the unjust picture that you have painted in terms of educational subsidies actually hurting the poor.

Thanks for stopping by!!! Allow me to respond.

Your response actually strengthens my argument, my point here is that the overwhelming number of students who would benefit from lower tuition costs are the middle and especially upper class students, whether low income students don’t get to these universities because of admittance or not is beside the point, what is important is that it is true that a majority of them don’t get there.

Second, as my UCLA example showed, even where there is a large amount of money given to a University many times that does not result in a lower tuition fee. So even in cases where a University has many low income students - and as a student at a UC school, I can tell you that the amount of low income students is certainly not large - giving large amount of money to that University, either through government subsidies or private money, is certainly no guarantee that tuition will drop, all in all, becoming a system that primarily benefits the rich, at the poor person’s expense.

Which is why I proposed that instead of having the government give money to Universities, instead give it in the form of a voucher directly to low income families, thereby forcing Universities to compete to attract these low income students in order to get more income, more on that here.

You bring up a very important point with your emphasis on preparation instead of mere acceptance when you said,

personally, i would rather see government subsidies go to improving the state of public schools in working class neighborhoods. that way there would be more kids who would be prepared to attend harvard. and then we can worry about funding them.

I completely agree!!! However, the problem arises in the fact that more money for public education is not correlated with better educational results.

I could go on and on talking about that but in short, this is what you get with more money for education; a picture is worth a thousand words…click here.

However, there are proven methods to increase test results, and that is through education vouchers, which is why I support them so strongly.

Thanks for dropping by and congrats - one more time - on your new career.

i think that it’s interesting that you fault harvard for only funding X number of working class students. the more pertinent issue might be to examine how many working class kids are actually admitted into harvard. and then to look at how many of them are funded.

my hunch is that, because of the poor state of public schools in working class neighborhoods, many kids are not even admitted, let alone being granted financial aid.

i don’t feel too strongly about university subsidies (though it’s important to recognize that a lot of working class kids at UC schools, etc. *do* find these subsidies crucial). personally, i would rather see government subsidies go to improving the state of public schools in working class neighborhoods. that way there would be more kids who would be prepared to attend harvard. and then we can worry about funding them.