Time has an interesting story about tertiary education in the United States - currently one of the most expensive places to have tertiary education. Basically, a number of universities are replacing student loans with grants, using the household income as the basis to determine eligibility.
This is certainly a noble pursuit - after all, if knowledge is meant to be free; surely financial ability should not impact the dissemination of knowledge. And I do not understand the author's argument, that this ultimately has a ripple effect on other universities who cannot match the generosity of the institutions with large endowments (such as Harvard). Because - does that matter?
Surely, a prospective student will only really look at two factors - the quality of the education offered by the institution and the can the student afford it. In that light, will a student who can get into Harvard (and now afford it) really look at alternatives? Yes, it does raise the prospect that the "good" students will only be going to a select number of universities - but is there any different to the present scenario?
No comments:
Post a Comment