Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxerickson | Hacker News Reader

It can still be the case that they are spending excessively on administrators.

They can easily use any potential savings by adjusting the way their scholarships taper off versus income.

Maybe, but using one of the most successful and wealthy institutions in the world as an example of ineffective bloat isn't useful for the overall argument.

"This workout routine is a waste of time and effort. See, look at Usain Bolt doing it."

With the cost of education in the US being so expensive and the constant call for student loan forgiveness ($1 trillion), it might be worth looking into the extra cost. I’m sure Stanford isn’t unique.

The cost of a university education has far outpaced inflation. Harvard cost $2,600 in 1970.

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/16/why-college-costs-are-so-hig...

At Stanford, there's no connection between university undergraduate cost and price. Tuition is an unimportant part of the budget.

First, I was talking about the extra cost, in general, with all universities.

Second, since you brought it up, can you explain how they determine the cost of tuition? If it’s unimportant maybe they can simply eliminate it for everyone. Are other universities the same?

> If it’s unimportant maybe they can simply eliminate it for everyone

Sticker price is an important value signal, which draws elites who, as alumnae, support the institution, so what elite universities do is have high sticker prices and then internal need-based financial aid packages that cover much of the costs for non-wealthy students. This also, incidentally, maximizes tuition revenue, as those who can pay from their own pocket or outside scholarships do pay. But maximizes revenue is incidental, because tuition is not the main source of revenue.

If that is the case then something is out of whack.

Actually, it is unique in that cost is no barrier to receiving an education at Stanford.

No, it isn’t unique. Many elite/expensive schools offer either free or heavily discounted tuition for lower and middle income students.

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/how-ivy-league-financial-a...

The point I was making is that the cost of an education is uncoupled (at elite universities) from the ability to afford it.

It may be hopelessly optimistic, but I think that eventually, tuition will and should be eliminated for everyone.. As it stands now, where students from wealthier families pay more, it is a good consolation prize.

In your analogy, are the students his sore muscles?

His pulled hamstring is from over extending this analogy.

This assumes there is any benefit at all to them 'saving' in a situation where they're drowned in money specifically because they already have all the money and seek more from people who assume money is best spent by giving it to entities who already have the most money.

Sort of 'progress through increasing the highest possible score'. In this light, spending excessively on administrators and absurd things is a form of virtue signalling meant to elicit further gifts through demonstrating they are already wealthy beyond all imagining.

That's not a joke: that's actually how it works, and there are many parallels, for instance in the stock market.

Apparently over the years they have reduced administration, at least in some areas. Maybe now they are just slightly less bloated.

That said, some of the boat may have to do with government oversight for their research grants.

But as engineers all of us over 25 know exactly what happens when managers "reduce" "administration".

After said activity there is more administration and less of everything else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com