# The endowment exercise

by on September 29, 2022

When I am teaching students about inequality in education, I often do this exercise, which concerns inequalities in higher education (obviously, its only really about inequality between the very top echelon and the rest). I call it “The Endowment Exercise”. Please use/modify it if you think it would be helpful in your classes.[1]

The students take out their phones or computers, and work in pairs. Each pair is assigned to one college or university and is asked to calculate the annual yield on endowment for that college or university per undergraduate student. Here is how to do this:

Lookup the size of the endowment (this information is usually on the wikipedia page)

Divide the first number by the second number.

Divide the result by 25. This is because the prevailing wisdom is that, on average, you can spend 4-5% of an endowment/year consistent with the endowment maintaining its value over time. The final figure represents the amount of money per undergraduate student that the university is able to spend in addition to whatever revenues it gets from tuition and state appropriations and other sources.

Then the students report their results. Its very important in the reporting stage to pick less wealthy institutions for early reporting. This makes the students assigned to more wealthy institutions anxious that they have done the math wrong (they haven’t).

Here’s a list of institutions. Yours should include your own institution, some local regional comprehensive universities, some public institutions your students have heard of, and some of the wealthy institutions on the list.

University of Illinois-Chicago
UW-Milwaukee
UW-Parkside
The Ohio State University
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
UCLA
UW-Stevens Point
Harvard University
Princeton University
Grinnell College
Amherst College
Stanford University
USC

Just to give a sense of the orders of magnitude here are 4 results:

UW Parkside: \$61
Grinnell College: \$67,000
Harvard: \$509,000
Stanford: \$239,000

Of course: not all of this endowment yield is spent on the undergraduates. There’s probably no way of calculating how much is, at least on the basis of publicly available information. But the amounts reveal very considerable disparities in the resources available, in principle, for spending on undergraduate programs (Note, the better endowed institutions do not charge lower tuition than, for example, UW-Parkside).

[1] My dad suggested that it might be a good idea to do this for the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, and some of their constituent colleges. Somebody presumably has the time and expertise for that.

1

Trader Joe 09.29.22 at 2:30 pm

While I think the purpose of your exercise is entirely valid – the reasons endowments become massive has as much to do with outflow as inflow.

Schools that can’t or don’t charge high tuitions or don’t have other access to funding are far more likely to spend 4.5% of their endowment (sometimes more) supporting the funding of their organization. Harvard & Stanford et al are spending nothing like 4.5% since they have ample funding outside the endowment so the unspent part compounds.

Beyond that (and this is first hand knowledge) the more “excess” endowment a school has (i.e. funds well above what they expect to disperse) the more able they are to invest their endowment for larger risk adjusted returns. That is, an endowment that needs liquidity for funding the school will invest in bonds and hold more cash – one that has more excess can invest in stocks, real-estate, private equity etc. providing the opportunity for even greater returns (a key part of the Harvard story).

Your point is well made – but the adage “it takes money to make money” is also a piece of the puzzle.

2

KZ 09.29.22 at 3:16 pm

I think it would be really interesting to know if the wealthy institutions can break even with tuition: do the revenue from tuition cover all the non investment expenses (new buildings doesn’t count)? If so, they are not really spending any of the endowment.

3

Jonathan Monroe 09.29.22 at 3:47 pm

For Cambridge, the numbers are on Wikipedia. The combined “endowment” (i.e. income-generating investments as opposed to other assets like buildings) is 7.1 billion GBP for the University and the Colleges, and there are 12,354 undergraduates, giving a total return at 4% of £23,000 per undergraduate. The richest College by far is Trinity, with an endowment of £1.3 billion, returning £70,000 per undergraduate (although some of this is redistributed – the University levies a tax on the College’s endowment income). In either case, Oxbridge is a lot poorer than Ivy+ universities.

It is worth noting that, at least in the UK, the largest use of endowment income is scholarships for overseas postgrads, so undergraduates only may be the wrong denominator.

4

Slanted Answer 09.29.22 at 5:05 pm

Thanks for this fascinating (albeit depressing) exercise.

I’m totally out of my depth on this issue, but does type of institution affect whether endowment spending translates to more money spent on undergrad programs?

For instance, the (selective, but not prestigious) SLAC I attended for undergrad has higher per student endowment spending than the public universities I attended for grad school (in the case of one of them, somewhat significantly more—although they all look to be spending peanuts compared to the Ivy League schools listed above).

Nonetheless, I don’t think you’d know that if you visited these schools. The amenities at the public schools were much better (more meal options, better facilities, movie theaters, union events, etc.). The SLAC had many fewer amenities and has even made it onto lists of schools in danger of folding (which isn’t true for the public schools).

5

kent 09.29.22 at 5:18 pm

Thanks for this post. It sparked a discussion in my house (here in Madison, WI) that was useful to all of us.

6

LFC 09.29.22 at 7:34 pm

Harvard says it “targets an annual payout rate” of 5.0 to 5.5 percent of the endowment’s market value, though the actual rate fluctuates somewhat. Also says about 80 percent of the funds in the endowment are restricted to specific schools, programs, scholarships, specific endowed chairs etc. So it’s clearly not spending anything near 5 percent directly on the undergraduates, esp since it has all the other grad and professional schools, etc. (Link to follow later.) OTOH part of what it is spending on is undergraduate financial aid, which is also financed by alumni and other contributions. Given the size of the endowment, it’s not clear why they couldn’t draw it down by a few billion in value and still be v. comfortable, but neither they nor, presumably, other wealthy universities want to do that.

7

engels 09.29.22 at 7:43 pm

Surely undergraduates aren’t even the top spending priority at Harvard etc (let alone sole priority as this seems to assume)? I’m sure they’re not at Oxbridge and I always thought of Oxbridge as being more focused on undergraduate education than the Ivy League (because of tutorials etc). The discrepancies are staggering though.

8

engels 09.29.22 at 7:47 pm

Didn’t someone suggest somewhere that for the US megabucks places growing the endowment is actually the point and the academic stuff is just window dressing?

9

Harry 09.29.22 at 7:50 pm

Gifts tend to come with strings attached, so it is not the case that an institution is (legally) free to do whatever it wants with the income it receives from the yield. But large yields, even if their purposes are very constrained, allow universities more freedom to do what they want with other revenues. I use # of undergraduates as the denominator because I. personally, see undergraduate education as the part of the educational mission that is most likely to contribute to the public good if done well (and the only part that plausibly could contribute much to social mobility, though that is a different matter).

Thanks about Cambridge. Does land count as asset or endowment? Either way, it strikes me that Cambridge and Ozford would contribute a lot to the public good, at least for the next century or so, by getting completely out of undergraduate education, but that’s not really on the table!

10

LFC 09.29.22 at 8:36 pm

KZ@2

There is no way tuition at the wealthy institutions is covering expenses. That’s partly bc most or many undergrads at these places are getting significant amounts of financial aid; they aren’t paying full tuition by any means. In fact part of the (unrestricted) payout from the endowment is presumably going to financial aid.

So why don’t they just lower tuition, since the majority of students aren’t paying full tuition? The answer is that they have chosen a model where those undergrads whose families are deemed able to afford it pay full freight and everyone else doesn’t. This model is, among other things, needlessly (in my admittedly half-informed view) complicated, but it seems to be very entrenched by now. In the long run it would be better if they just lowered their tuitions significantly, but that is almost certainly not going to happen.

11

engels 09.29.22 at 8:43 pm

it strikes me that Cambridge and Ozford would contribute a lot to the public good, at least for the next century or so, by getting completely out of undergraduate education

This is a common sentiment on Left-Twitter but I fear that as soon as it was realised the people who wanted us to be ruled by people with Ivy League PhDs would immediately fall out with the people who wanted us to be ruled by people with Russell Group BAs.

12

engels 09.29.22 at 9:05 pm

Not to mention that Krazy Kwasi has a DPhil I believe.

13

John Quiggin 09.29.22 at 9:46 pm

For the University of Queensland, where I work

Financial assets: \$1 billion
Students: 40 000
Funding: \$1000/student/year

(all in \$A, worth about \$US0.70)

I’d guess Sydney and Melbourne quite a bit richer, Monash and UNSW maybe similar, all others poorer. So, endowment income not a significant source for most

Australian unis rely on international students paying \$A20ooo or so per year to subsidise domestic undergraduates.

14

Thomas P 09.30.22 at 8:01 am

LFC, prestige universities want rich kids as students as they can pay more directly and are more likely to give large donations later on, but in order to gain reputation as good universities they also need brilliant students, picked not for wealth but for outstanding performance. That’s why you have these complicated models with reduced tuition and scholarships.

15

engels 09.30.22 at 12:24 pm

on average, you can spend 4-5% of an endowment/year consistent with the endowment maintaining its value over time

Another useful exercise would be to ask them to ponder how this is possible.

16

oldster 09.30.22 at 12:40 pm

Comparisons between state and private can be misleading, because some state unis receive direct budgetary support from a legislature.
As you say in your OP, the only point of an endowment is the revenue stream it generates. A billion dollars is a lot of money, but its only value to the uni is in the 40 million dollar per annum revenue stream that it generates (at 4percent, as you say).
So if you ask me, which uni has more money, Private X with an endowment of 1 billion, or Public Y with an endowment of zero but a line item in the state budget that gives it 40 million per year, then the answer is that they are tied. They both deliver the same revenue stream.
So, the endowment for UW Parkside looks appalling. And maybe their funding from the state is appalling, too (Wisconsin’s legislature has been taken over by appalling people). But without knowing the state funding, the endowment figure alone does not allow any meaningful comparisons.
It’s exactly like comparing two people’s retirement prospects, when one of them has a state pension and the other has only savings. Pensioner A has a million in savings, Pensioner B has no savings, but receives a pension from the state. Which is better off? A’s million provides an actual income of 40k; if B’s state pension is 45k, then B is better off, even if they have no savings.
(This is not quite right, since savings can cushion transient shocks and rainy days, whether for individuals or unis. But aside from accidents, the only value of savings is the revenue it generates.)

17

notGoodenough 09.30.22 at 1:07 pm

Perhaps interestingly (for comparison to Oxbridge), my rough-and-ready estimations are:

St Andrews: ca. £556
University of Glasgow: ca. £426
University of Liverpool: ca. £335
Strathclyde: ca. £90
BCU: ca. £10

Not zero, but doesn’t seem much compared to tuition fees…

18

Cranky Observer 09.30.22 at 5:11 pm

Washington University in St. Louis
\$13,700,000,000 endowment

St. Louis Community College
6 undergraduate campuses, 4 continuing education/industrial partnership facilities, 2 research facilities
\$3,800,000 endowment

I sense a disparity in the force.

19

Harry 09.30.22 at 8:34 pm

oldster — that’s right, yes. However two things:

Before the Trump tax reforms (the effects of which on endowments made this exercise harder to do, and which I don’t understand anyway) I worked out that the elite elites (Harvard, Stanford, etc) actually received more government money per undergraduate student than most State Flagships. I calculated that partly by counting what they would pay in taxes on endowment growth if that were taxed as government support.

Also, and slightly orthogonal: There are very large inequalities of State support among public institutions even within states. The California master plan is exhibit A: UCs get more per student than CSUs which get more per student than CCs. But other states do the same, less systematically. Basically, States appropriate more for more selective institutions (which enroll more affluent and more successful students) than for less selective institutions (which enroll less affluent and less successful students).

20

John Quiggin 10.01.22 at 1:59 am

Is there a comparative analysis of the extent to which tertiary education systems in different countries are stratified in terms of resources, research income etc. ? Australia has a pretty clear hierarchy among universities and a big gap between university and “technical and further” education.

But, at least for undergraduate education, the differences between steps in the hierarchy aren’t great. There’s no counterpart to the Ivy League or, AFAICT, to the lower tiers of the US state system.

21

engels 10.01.22 at 10:22 am

One way of interpreting Jonathan’s comment is that in endowment terms Cambridge is lot more similar to UW-Madison than Harvard.

22

engels 10.01.22 at 11:56 am

the endowment for UW Parkside looks appalling

Yes: it’s 61 \$/ug higher than it would be in a just world (and than Harvard’s and UW-Madison’s would be).

23

oldster 10.01.22 at 12:33 pm

Harry —
Thanks. Is there a way to develop a parallel “appropriations exercise” to compare the state support for state schools? That might provide a clearer picture when comparing states and privates.
Also: something that I have never understood about endowments is how the inalienable properties of the school are priced in. Widener Library and Emerson Hall are not literally inalienable for Harvard, but they might as well be — there’s no scenario on which Harvard will sell off those buildings and plots of land, short of Harvard’s closing its doors.
In which case, they have no ongoing economic value, because they don’t generate rents. If I own 100 acres of real estate in Cambridge, MA, and I can rent it out for shopping malls, restaurants, and housing, then that is a cash cow. If I own 100 acres of leafy quads and pseudo-gothic classrooms that I cannot rent out or sell, then it yields no cash at all. How is that difference reflected in calculating Harvard’s endowment?
You might say: but there’s imputed rents, and there’s the literal renting of dorm rooms. Okay, but then the state has given hundreds of acres plus buildings to Small State U, which we should now include in it’s endowment.

24

LFC 10.01.22 at 2:35 pm

John Quiggin @20

The exact number of research dollars available likely makes a difference for graduate education and perhaps for undergrad in specific fields (such as some natural sciences and/or engineering). However, as far as undergraduate education in the U.S. in general is concerned, there’s really no difference in “the hierarchy” between the Ivy League and the most selective liberal arts colleges (e.g. Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Haverford, etc.) or for that matter, UVA or Stanford or Berkeley (etc.).

No one should pick an undergrad school on the basis of the size of its endowment, the specific focus of this thread. Nor is it a good idea to pick an undergrad school mainly on the basis of its name or prestige value. Indeed a convincing argument can be made that, from the instrumental standpoint of getting into elite grad schools etc., it’s better (or at least as good) to be a stellar, standout student at a school considered second-tier or third-tier than it is to have an undistinguished (in terms of grades etc.) record at Yale, Harvard or Princeton.

25

Harry 10.01.22 at 2:56 pm

oldster — ok, that’s my next task! Sandy Baum and Michael McPherson have a lot of information in their new book Can College Level the Playing Field? (I hate to spoil it but….no!). But it’s not granular. It would be interesting to do it within states. And not only do the flagships get more appropriations, but they are also able to enroll non-resident students at above cost, thus generating revenues. (Yes, lots of non flagships can do this, but their market price tends to be much lower, and their pool smaller).

I think this is the answer about land. The land that the privates own and use is not included in endowment calculations at all. And that includes dorms, etc — any revenue generated from dorms is accounted for separately from endowment yields. The reason I asked Jonathan about land owned by the Oxbridge colleges is that some of them are among the UK’s largest landowners and I know for sure that generates rents that, I think, are separate from endowment yields.

Now: the state side of this is interesting. I am almost sure that the State of Wisconsin has not, in fact, given the land that UW-Madison sits on to the University. Its not ours, it belongs to the State. Buildings tend to be paid for these days through partnerships between the State and donors — the State says: you can have \$X from us for such and such building, which we thereby authorize you to build, but only if you can raise \$Y from donors for that purpose. I don’t know what that means about ownership. But the land itself is the State’s.

Another comment about unequal appropriations. More selective public colleges charge higher tuition than, get higher appropriations than and enroll more affluent students than less selective public colleges. I’ve scrutinized both Sanders’ and Warren’s free public college proposals, and neither display any awareness of any of this. Taken at face value both proposals would have ratcheted these inequalities in, ensuring that even among public college attendees the Federal government was subsidizing more affluent students much more heavily than less affluent students.

26

engels 10.01.22 at 4:38 pm

Probably not worth much but my prejudice would that Jonathan’s picture is correct as we had the relative penury of Oxbridge vs well-endowed US unis drummed into us us by the bursar of our wealthy Oxbridge college during freshers week (part of a personal propaganda campaign for tuition fees). I know they own lots of land but so do the big USian funds (Harvard was the largest landowner in Romania or something until recently I think!) It seems unlikely to me the US numbers would include land holdings but the UK ones wouldn’t but no doubt the internet will reveal all.

If I own 100 acres of leafy quads and pseudo-gothic classrooms that I cannot rent out or sell, then it yields no cash at all.

Don’t US unis do conference lets? Again back in the day UK college admin seemed far more interested in them and their money than smelly students, who would generally be ritually evicted from halls on the last day of term for that reason.

27

Harry 10.01.22 at 11:19 pm

Yes they do conference lets. But this is just part of the regular operating budget. It’s not big money relative to overall budgets for very selective universities (maybe it’s different for less selective institutions in expensive cities).

Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest of accounting for land ownership was different in for Christchurch than for Harvard. But genuinely I have no idea and am increasingly curious; following up doesn’t seem like a very responsible use of my time.!

28

Matt 10.02.22 at 1:01 am

It was a long time ago now, so no doubt some things have changed, but when I was an undergrad I had a job for a bit as one of the student managers of our (fairly nice) Student Union building. (We had full-time professional staff that ran it in the day during the week, and who did budgetting and planning and the like, but it was run by student managers in the evenigns and weekends.) The building was pretty large, and had meeting rooms from the rather small (good for at most 10 people or fewer) to large “ball rooms” that could hold several hundred. (It also had an auditorium that could be used for movies or music or lectures or, with difficulty, theator, a bowling alley, pool tables, a video game arcade, a food court, and the dining hall for the relatively small number of on-campus students at the time, and a place that rented outdoor sports equipment, and the campus book store. The bowling/pool/video game area was popular with the local community who could use it at any time.) My recollection was that, on the evening and weekends, about half of the use of the various rooms was by non-student groups, who paid for it, at something of a “market” rate, though almost certainly less than what they would have paid at a hotel or convention center or similar places. But, this mostly just went to running the building for students at very low or no cost. (Student groups could get space for little to nothing most of the time.) It certainly wasn’t a big money-maker over all. (And, at least at the time, if the dorms were rented out in the summers at all it was for younger students coming to do things like “boys and girls state” or other academic programs, but again, I expect that that did only a little more than cover expenses most of the time.) Again, no doubt things are different in some ways now and at some places, but I’d be surprised if renting out campus space is a very big money maker for most universities.

29

John Quiggin 10.02.22 at 7:04 am

LFC You’re still only looking at institutions educating top couple of percentiles of students, and at students who might want to get into good grad schools.

I’m thinking about the gap between Harvard and lower tier state schools like UW-Parkside.

30

oldster 10.02.22 at 12:16 pm

Harry —
I don’t mean to be setting you tasks. If I care so much about budgetary funding for state schools, then I should do the work of investigating it.

You have done a lot of good in the world by following your own sense of how to allocate your time, and ignoring distractions. No need to change that now.

31

engels 10.02.22 at 2:35 pm

Graun in 2018 gets larger totals in similar range but definitely including land (“estates”) and essential facilities like libraries in “consolidated net assets” although evidently they leave out the quads themselves (as well as things like Oliver Cromwell’s buried mummified head) as it would be vulgar to put a price on them. It’s still Madison rich, not Harvard rich, afaics.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/may/28/oxford-and-cambridge-university-colleges-hold-21bn-in-riches

32

engels 10.03.22 at 2:34 pm

I’d be surprised if renting out campus space is a very big money maker for most universities.

One example: LSE letting out some student lodgings over the summer for £170 a night. Perhaps not important in the scheme of things but a nice little earner.

https://www.lsevacations.co.uk/Accommodation/TheGeorge/Room-Types.aspx

33

engels 10.03.22 at 3:07 pm

Even if a normal student room only fetches £50 a night, say, if they have as many rooms as students and achieve 90% occupancy they’re taking in about £4K per student each year, which seems significant in relation to the per capita endowment yields for poorer US unis quoted above even after they’ve (under)paid their cleaners.

https://thebeaverlse.co.uk/lse-cleaners-sound-alarm-on-second-class-treatment/

34

joeyjoe 10.04.22 at 2:36 pm

I don’t understand the point of the exercise. Are you teaching students that colleges with a lot of money have a lot of money? Is your argument that every college is somehow morally obligated to have the same amount of money per student? Everything about this exercise seems utterly mundane-more appropriate for a junior high school exercise in division than a moral exercise.

joe

35

Chris Stephens 10.04.22 at 5:58 pm

Thanks for this, Harry. You may have seen this:

Apparently Princeton and others could charge no tuition if they wanted to (for any students).

At my institution: University of British Columbia: \$2.8 Billlion (CAN dollars) with 58,000 students: \$1,931
AT Langara College (nearby): \$5.8 million with 22,000 students: \$10.50

UBC gets about 1/3 of its budget from the government, 1/3 from tuition, and 1/3 from the endowment.
Langara gets about 1/3 from the government and about 2/3 from tuition and almost nothing from endowment.

36

Pro Bono 10.04.22 at 7:12 pm

“Cambridge and Oxford would contribute a lot to the public good, at least for the next century or so, by getting completely out of undergraduate education”

Why? I do some maths teaching (‘supervising’) for one of them. I’d stop if you persuaded me it’s harmful.

37

J-D 10.05.22 at 12:57 am

I don’t understand the point of the exercise. Are you teaching students that colleges with a lot of money have a lot of money?

When I am teaching students about inequality in education, I often do this exercise, which concerns inequalities in higher education (obviously, its only really about inequality between the very top echelon and the rest).

Possibly some people are already thoroughly familiar with the extent of the inequality between US higher education institutions, but evidently–

Then the students report their results. Its very important in the reporting stage to pick less wealthy institutions for early reporting. This makes the students assigned to more wealthy institutions anxious that they have done the math wrong (they haven’t).

–many of Harry’s students, coming in, are not so aware, and thus learn, from this exercise, something they didn’t already know.

I suppose some people might think that learning this new information is not worth their (Harry’s students’) while, but if anybody thinks that I would like them to explain why.

38

engels 10.05.22 at 9:37 am

Is your argument that every college is somehow morally obligated to have the same amount of money per student?

If memory of older posts serves (and putting it somewhat crudely) it seemed to be more that they’re morally enjoined (among other things) to educate each student to an identical level (so they can all go out and compete for self-fulfillment through paid employment on an equal footing).

39

engels 10.05.22 at 12:53 pm

Apparently Princeton and others could charge no tuition if they wanted to (for any students).

Iirc the Crooked Timber position on free tuition was that it would be “unfair” on people who didn’t go to university (but perhaps that would only apply if it were funded by the state).

40

oldster 10.05.22 at 1:03 pm

Agreeing with JD as against Joeyjoe.
People are very bad at grasping large magnitudes, even when they are adept at division. The difference between a billion of something and a million of something is arithmetically obvious, but its real practical import can easily escape people.
In particular, there is a lot of evidence that people in the US systematically underestimate the actual inequalities in wealth. They believe that the US economy is far more equitable than it actually is. And this rose-colored ignorance is exacerbated by problems grasping large magnitudes.
So, you need ways to make the real differences vivid, like Paul Campos’ cash point:
“If an ATM machine is spitting out exactly one dollar per second, you need to stand in front of it for eleven and half days to become a millionaire. Meanwhile you would need to stand in front of it for nearly 32 years to become a billionaire, The gap between eleven and a half days and 32 years seems far far greater than our sense of the gap between a million and a billion. And here’s the kicker: you would have to stand in front of that machine for 1,743 years to become as rich as Mike Bloomberg, and 5,833 years to become as rich as Jeff Bezos.”

Perhaps Joeyjoe is such a paragon of rationality that Campos’ ATM does not give him any new information. But I suspect that many of Harry’s students are genuinely educated by the exercise he has designed.

41

Alan White 10.06.22 at 5:24 am

In my classes I used an exercise derived from UW’s John Allen Paulos’ Innumeracy to understand wealth differences: spending a dollar a second. A thousand dollars lasts less than 17 minutes. A million lasts–quite unexpectedly for most–less than two weeks. A billion lasts–again unexpectedly–just under 32 years. A trillion, 32000 years. So where a million–a good IRA retirement amount–is gone in mere days at that rate, a multibillionaire (~300+) like Musk can spend it for nearly 10 thousand years. Students get that.

42

LFC 10.06.22 at 1:10 pm

engels @38

Re your comment and esp your last parenthetical remark, it might be interesting to contrast, say, Andrew Delbanco’s College (2012) with, say, the writing of Bryan Caplan on this topic (I forget the exact name of the book). (I haven’t read either one.)

43

engels 10.07.22 at 10:59 am

Thanks. To be clear, I don’t agree with either view: I think education should be free and there’s no injustice in principle in some people learning more than others. And I think endowments should nationalised, not equalised.

44

nastywoman 10.08.22 at 4:59 am

OR –
in other words:
There will be
NO WAY –
to solve the Inequality problem of higher education in the Anglo-Saxon World
If – like in countries like Germany –
higher education is completely ‘Tuition Free’.

But I guess such ‘reality’ – like examples of such a reality – will take a lot more time to make it through this blog?

45

engels 10.08.22 at 9:26 am

There will be NO WAY – to solve the Inequality problem of higher education in the Anglo-Saxon World If – like in countries like Germany – higher education is completely ‘Tuition Free’.

Do you mean “unless”? It was free in Britain until 1998 fwiw; now it’s the most expensive in the world.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/english-university-degrees-are-most-expensive-in-the-world-says-oecd-rxjmqq5kx

46

nastywoman 10.09.22 at 10:46 am

@45
‘Do you mean “unless”?’

Yes –
and before I had commented about the insanity of charging 60 000 bucks tuition for 22/23 at U-niversity(s) of S-poiled C-hildrens(s) in CA – and I thought that’s right now one of the utmost expensive ‘higher education you could get right now in the world -(especially since the British pound is worth – how much? -right now)

But somehow this – obviously ‘too nasty’ comment got lost? –
TOTAL INEQUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION
change their minds?

And dear Engels –
what did Marx say:
NEVER join any Anglo-Saxon University which would take you!

Right?
(Wingy-Winky)

Comments on this entry are closed.