Is internet access a public utility yet?

Correct me if I'm wrong but about 5-10 years ago I heard or read somewhere that, Harvard specifically, but most Ivy League schools actually made their money from patents. And that even if they let all the students go there for free they would still come out well in the green. Now if that's true then it would be reasonable to reduce tuition for a pure online year. Since if it's true they'd still be making plenty to cover expenses you've listed.

Ivy League schools have huge endowments in the billions that could cover the tuition of students for decades and they could still live off the interest. They thrive off their reputation and prestige, but the education you'd get there is the same as any other university.

The minute correction, and addition- is this if you make your money off of parents, alumni, etc- if you want to keep doing that, you need to be selective on who you let in.

As far as humans go, simply being a known name and one not everyone can have-increases the value of a brand. Now, as endowments and such get passed around- lots of hands are out. Lots of deserving hands. But...While people were paying Micheal Jackson’s debt or forgiving it, how many people were in need of that, and for things perhaps more pressing than making their mansion payments or roller coaster upkeep bills, but didn’t get it? And why? Because they aren’t Micheal Jackson. An institution. Of all the talented and not so talented musical millionaires- how many better musicians never get to cut professionally backed albums?

Name and image go a long way, and part of image is cultivating an image. But there’s more too it as well. People don’t GIVE money in that magnitude. They are supporting something- and they expect to see certain things. Namely- a legacy. I personally think that it’s quite noble to have a wing of a community college named after you- but if you want prestige- you want a building at Harvard, not some rando school where you’ll just be a plaque most students don’t see or care about.

Plus we forget the major purpose of Ivy League schools. If is f about the quality of education- it’s about the quality of student. When you pay for a kid to go to these schools- you’re basically paying to make sure they meet the “right people.” Success is often more to do with your dorm mate or fraternity/sorority oaks etc than how well you are. Let’s face it- the world only has so many prodigies and if you’re rich, and your kid ain’t one of them- well... it’s better for financial success to be the guy who owns the company the top grad works at than be the smartest person in the room and the lowest paid.

The prestige comes from the fact that these schools- you’ll be almost guaranteed to be meeting future presidents and leaders of business and politics. You get connected. You learn the secret handshakes and the proper manners and way to speak and act, the soft skills and you rub elbows with the elites. It all fits in together to form a package. You’re buying a very good chance at making it to the top- and with luxury goods, discounts usually hurt the brand. A $5,000 watch is still $5,000 quality (or whatever quality it was to start) but when it is $200 and anyone can get it- it’s not exclusive any more. And isn’t that part of the point? Not everyone gets to go to Harvard- if they did- it would be like any community college.

Bro my online class quality is absolute doo doo and I go to the #1 public institution in the US

That was the point. It isn’t about quality with institutions like this- the two biggest factors in quality of education are access and effort. Ivy League schools primarily exist as social clubs. They way they prepare people for success is by having them meet the “right people” and giving them a chance to network with the children of powerful and wealthy or connected individuals. That’s what a “legacy” is. It’s a fancy way of saying entrenched wealth and privilege.

I guess you can make that argument with a private school. I’m in a bit of a different situation with a public university. People are arguing that tuition needs to be decreased because quality is being decreased. I just think all universities need to give their students a break because it’s obvious they’re rolling in dough

I’d certainly say a public school is different- or should be. Public schools exist to provide education at a higher level to the public. They should not look to compete with private schools directly- but just in how to provide the best quality education they can while remaining accessible. Rising tuition is now and has been a problem for half a century give or take. They do seem to be rolling in the dough- and by you or I’s standards they have a lot. I won’t bore you (for once..) when we break down the numbers, they aren’t really that well off- and quality education takes quality educators... so there’s a balance between how to maintain a staff and administrative culture and benefits to attract quality educators and administrators.

Even if we reduced the amount the school ends up with- there’s a relatively minuscule return per student- and we get into strange questions. A science program generally needs more funding and gadgets than an accounting program- but the students generally pay the same tuition don’t they? Many schools DO have attendance fees for certain programs however. Where they don’t- students are subsidizing other students- which I can’t see how anyone against “free” education can be upset at such a subsidy by those who don’t directly benefit to those who do.

But really- it comes down to giving back. That’s where it gets sticky. We can say that education benefits the entire population- but 1. Not directly. 2. Not equally (some benefit more from others being educated than others do..) and 3. It’s pretty abstract. I mean- people being happy also benefits society- but I don’t see the state buying me a sports car or a gaming rig any time soon. What is important there- is that society has an expectation that there be amore tangible return on investments in education than helping someone else buy a boat and charge them to use the skills society helped pay for- without a discount.

That’s where it gets interesting. How many people, of given a substantial tuition discount or a “free education” would turn around and discount their own services using those skills across the board? Not many. The IDEA is that even if one does not choose to be a donor or what not- that the tuition is a moderate and fair percentage of their lifetime earnings gain from said skills- paid back into the system which provided that. A “cut for the house.”

The real problems are that wages have failed to pace inflation, and higher degrees don’t offer what they used to- as we see- people get upset to spend 4 years to become a skilled professional and then effectively work for the same amount as an unskilled laborer after they’ve “paid the house.” The other major issue is that greed and laziness corrupt the whole idea- there ARE abuses. I don’t expect the dean of UofO to live in a trailer with their mom and have to buy used dental floss in an alley- but there are excesses and inefficiencies in the system that could be worked out.

But those educators went to college too- and had college loans too. Some still do. So we can’t really expect them to train us to make more money and not have to pay them for their schooling. And yes- the boomers had cheap school. But they are disappearing from the faculties and it will be people who paid an arm and a leg too.

All very complex stuff. My general stance is that we should just make a public system where ANYONE can get whatever education they want and are capable of passing entrance prerequisites and altitudes- and not worry about charging them, and instead- require a sort of servitude wherein they must put their skills to work for the public until a burden is satisfied that they have “paid back the investment.” You’d need some controls- it wouldn’t do to give people a “free” world class education and then have them go hop a plane and work in another country and “dodge” their service requirements and just take the degree and pocket the cash.

But there could be multiple paths of public service to an education, military service, public service, generally doing things society needs to show that you’re willing to give back and not just take. We could even possibly just have some program by which graduates had to then teach the next class or something like that- with controls and metrics to ensure they don’t just “phone it in” etc. I dunnoh. It all sucks. Many sides to the story.