The bigger problem is their endowments and tax exempt status. The amount of wealth going through top universities is insane, with schools like Stanford and Harvard becoming appendages to giant hedge funds.
For government-run schools, most of the students have little or no choice. Standardized tests (like SBAC) show poor results in California (most kids fail to meet grade level standards in the test), but parents have little ability to change how school districts are run.
- Our tax dollars fund government-run schools that cost an $26k per student per year. Fewer than half the students at those schools meet or exceed grade standards for Math and English.
- The median cost of a religious school is about half the cost of government-run schools: https://x.com/RahimNathwani/status/1840965145604079997
- Parents who choose to send their children to non-government-run schools get no vouchers: we pay taxes to fund government employees, and then use what's left to pay for the schools our children need.
If so then you are enthusiastically cheering for kids to be thrown on the scrapheap to save you a few bucks. And using religion as a cover for it, which only makes it worse.
- The link you posted doesn't talk about public schools at all, only private school tuition.
- This 2024 census.gov report[1] says that San Francisco public schools cost $23,654 per student
- According to graph on the link that you posted only 12% of private schools in San Francisco charge < $25000 annual tuition
- According to the article from the link you posted religious schools make up 48% of private schools in California, so mathematically, at least 3/4 religious schools charge more in annual tuition than a year of public school costs (according to census.gov)
- According to the article from the link you posted, religious schools offer special lower rates for families who belong to the parish, meaning the "cost per student" is even higher than tuition
[1] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024/public-s...
> The link you posted doesn't talk about public schools at all, only private school tuition.
> According to graph on the link that you posted only 12%
> of private schools in San Francisco charge < $25000
> annual tuition
The median sticker price for parochial schools in San Francisco is:
Grades K-12: $10.9k
Grade 3: $10.4k
Grade 8: $10.9k
Grade 12: $27.0k
All of the above are calculated by weighting each school equally, as I don't have access to per-school per-grade student counts. Feel free to recalculate these. They're based solely on the data the SF Chronicle intern collected.
> This 2024 census.gov report[1] says that San Francisco
> public schools cost $23,654 per student
SFUSD's operating budget for 2024-2025 is $1.3 billion (https://www.sfusd.edu/about-sfusd/sfusd-news/press-releases/...).
It has 48,000 students (https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/sfusd-closures-b...).
That's $27k per student per year, which is more than it was the last time I looked!
> According to the article from the link you posted,
> religious schools offer special lower rates for families
> who belong to the parish, meaning the "cost per student"
> is even higher than tuition
2). This statistic is meaningless unless without data about the inputs and outputs. I assume that that student populations are vastly different.
3). That's your choice. In Ohio, I get to fund religious education, which I am vehemently opposed to doing.
Have you considered that, perhaps if you and like-minded parents didn't remove their students from the public education system, perhaps the test scores would be higher?
Have you considered that, perhaps if you and like-minded parents didn't remove their students from the public education system, perhaps the test scores would be higher?
Government schools in my area are not an attractive option. I spoke with the principal of one of the top 3 most popular elementary government schools (measured by ratio of applicants to kindergarten spots). She made it clear that, if my son were to attend that school:
- my son would never be allowed to skip a grade
- under no circumstances would a teacher in grade X teach material normally covered in grade X+1
My son is in 3rd grade, doing math with the 4th grade class, and studying 5th grade math at home.
If he were at a government-run school, he would be in 2nd grade, and spend math lessons at school covering material he mastered 2 years ago.
In Ohio, I get to fund religious education, which I am vehemently opposed to doing.
SFUSD has 1 adult employee for every 3.5 students. A minority of those adults are classroom teachers. Average class sizes are not 3.5, or 7, or even 14.
The question is, which students and researchers should benefit from it? It's not like that money wouldn't be used for education; it would just go to more meritocratic institutions, and their students and researchers.
It is sort of like you want to place colleges on similar to a terrorist list where no funding can reach them unless they get in line with the western world.
Federal funding goes to institutions that uphold the federal Govt, not those that oppose it. The federal govt works in the interest of what its representatives seek. Those representatives are enforced by a variety of constituents including corporations, NGOs, non profits, and individuals.
You believe that taxpayers should say where the money goes. In such cases, it only goes back into the taxpayers pockets.
add: come to think of it, I guess private university can just not accept financial aids from the government and keep their own admission policy if they have enough money to subsidize students who need financial aids. Whether you like it or not, federal money comes with (or should come with) strings attached (or manipulation in your words)
Pell grants are not given to universities. They are given to students, who choose the university. The student has a say where the student goes and where the pell grant goes. Pell grants are responsibilities of the student.
The only workaround is to blacklist the university to ever be chosen by the student, because the govt will not allow the student to get aid. That’s akin to a terrorist list.
To me, you are advocating (tell me if I am mistaken) that university can have any admission policy (including unfair policy) they want (free from requests of the government) even if federal money is provided to them (indirectly of course) as a result of such admission policy. I disagree with this. If you're advocating to grant total freedom to university with regards to admission policy and get rid of federal support for all schools, then I am in agreement with you.
The student applies to a university. The university accepts the student and sends a tuition bill. The bill is financed by the student via assistance from the federal government. At no point does the University have a direct connection to the federal government in this scenario. The federal govt can only force the student (not the university) to choose where the student attends.
> I reject the semantic argument that university gets student money, not the government money if the money was not directly given to them
This is the reality of the trade agreement. No way to force a rule down anyone's throat without another agreement for a trade in place. You are only rejecting how legal frameworks are. You are not rejecting an argument.
Pell grant restrictions and eligibilities are placed on the student. Not the university.
BTW Pell grants have restrictions on school as well (many vocational institutions do not adhere to such restrictions, so they are not qualified to accept Pell grant money). The below are examples of such requirements:
Accreditation - Schools must be accredited by a recognized accrediting agency.
Compliance with Federal Guidelines - Schools must comply with federal regulations concerning how they manage and disburse student aid, including ensuring that funds are used properly and that students maintain satisfactory academic progress.
Non-discrimination - Schools must adhere to federal anti-discrimination laws <= this might be further strengthened to incorporate legacy admission as well.
Reporting Requirements - Schools must regularly report data to the Department of Education about their students, including Pell Grant recipients, and meet financial responsibility standards.
Misuse of Funds - Schools found to be misusing federal funds or engaging in fraudulent practices can lose eligibility to participate in federal student aid programs.
If a school does not adhere to such requirements, students cannot even find the school on FAFSA application to select. I remember one instance where school was delisted from FAFSA application (University of Phoenix I believe because they did not comply with federal regulations).
Every time federal loan guarantees and grants increase, so do higher education prices. Drastically cutting back on those loan guarantees and grants should lead to a drastic cut to higher education costs.
> Private university can do whatever they want with their admission as long as no public money...
We must distinguish "student loan guarantees" (or vouchers) from direct funding, otherwise there will never be such a thing as a "private school", only public schools masquerading as private.
Declaring bankruptcy at that moment would be the optimal financial strategy if it wiped out the student debt.