College Admissions Is a Regressive Tax on Low-Income Students

College is really expensive in the US because of the government's attempt to allow anyone to get in through loans.

Universities know that students have to pay it back no matter what, so they can keep increasing the costs of classes and various admin fees. They already get their money up-front, because student most likely paid it through a loan, and (the university) doesn't have to worry about it being paid back (they don't have to take on any risk).

We need to get rid of the federal student loan system and make the Universities the lenders/accountable for the risk of the loan.

This would decrease the costs of classes, because it would be closer to the true value of what people can afford, not an inflated number that gets passed along.

It's interesting because the same thing is happening with the medical care system in the US. If the middleman was removed (insurance companies), costs would go down.

Before I go on, I what to remind you that the article is talking about elite universities, institutions that are typically "private" rather than public. Institutions that typically do not have the mandates to educate the masses that "public" institutions do. Yes, I know that universities like Harvard and MIT get lots of public funding both directly and indirectly. I am going to reference Harvard, but what is true for that institution is true for most elite private colleges and universities.

I am in this space. Getting kids (rich and poor) into the best colleges is what I do.

Some will say that Harvard is only for the rich (the article certainly implies as much). It is not. It is for the prepared. In fact, it might be argued that Harvard is the perfect university for the hyper-prepared poor. If your family makes less than $65k then you go for free. Full stop. For most families making less than $150k a year, Harvard is cheaper than most public universities. A degree from Harvard opens up potentially life altering social economic opportunities.

I cannot overstate this. Harvard is not for the rich, Harvard is for the prepared. It is absolutely the case that college admissions and life in general favors the prepared. It is absolutely the case that the "rich" are better able to prepare their spawn for college and life in general. It is absolutely the case that this is not fair from the perspective of those unable (or unwilling) to prepare. However, life is not fundamentally fair.

When institutions get 20x the number of applicants than they need (be it a college or a company) how should they select from amongst them? The article suggests that applicants should be selected by evaluating "work ethic" and "aptitude", but somehow not by "grades" and "testing" as those are "backward-looking proxies". The article further recommends that students without demonstrated "work ethic" and "aptitude" should be given what might be described as an academic internship.

How exactly does a candidate demonstrate work ethic and aptitude if not by evaluating their past performances and via testing? The idea that a college or company should offer internships to all interested candidates is financially and logistically impossible. But, you know what, the education industry manages to do it anyways.

Want an education internship as an opportunity to prove yourself? Take two years at a state university or community college. They are typically much easier to get into and in the case of some community colleges are actually "open admissions". Once you have proved yourself, finish at Harvard or MIT or any of the other top rated institutions. That should be no problem right? You were given two more years of education interning to prove you have what it takes.

Harvard is a business. A business based on the (justified or unjustified) reputation of their product. Just like Volvo (a car company with a reputation for safety) is less likely to take a risk on a new untested design that may or may not be safe, Harvard is less likely to take a risk on investing in unproven candidates. They don't know that an unproven, unknown candidate has what it takes to get past the first year, graduate on time, be a future leader who will employ their graduates or, be large donor who showers them with money. These are all factors that Harvard will judge and be judged on.

What they do know is that for every open slot, they have 20 eager candidates to choose from. Candidates who believe at some level they have qualified for or have earned the right to attend. Either that, or are just willing to throw away $75 for the vanity opportunity to say they got rejected.

Of these twenty candidates:

- Some are the top of their high school class

- Some have near perfect SAT scores

- Some play elite level competitive music or sports while maintaining good grades

- Some have letters of recommendation from Fortune 500 CEOs, Senators, Generals and, even past Presidents

- Some have parents and siblings who were able to make it through the Harvard system

- Some have parents who have given back to Harvard via employment opportunities and donations

Then Harvard has the hopeful candidates who say "I may not have anything that demonstrates my commitment or aptitude, but I feel I have great potential and would have been better prepared but..."

If you are hiring for a hyper competitive position in your company, are you going to look at the stack of resumes and judge your applicant's past performance? Are you going to interview and test your applicant's knowledge or are you going to randomly select one and hope based on their enthusiasm and interest in your company that it all works out for you? That is essentially what this article is advocating.