alumni Digest, Vol 39, Issue 8

[Nick Gorton]

"I have a hard time believing this is really where the impetus for the
tuition thing is coming from.  As you point out, people in this group
can already afford in-state tuition at UNC schools.  And are there
really that many of them?"

Its the same reason that you can get professionals to listen to you at
a lunch-time talk for the price of 2 slices of cheap pizza. Even
people with money like something free. Secondly, its not entirely
cynical about people's motivation in thinking. The wealthy donor may
be able to send his kid to any college, but he feels affinity with the
school makes him favor things that benefit it. That may also be the
case for older graduates (who now are of the age that they may be able
to be the wealthy donor's themselves but not benefit monetarily.) And
that's the motivation I believe is likely behind the people pushing
this whose kids attend NCSSM or people here. Hell it would be utterly
stupid to support a potentially contentious bill for the equivalent of
a few grand a year for an individual.

So its in some ways altruistic, but it is also not a well considered
use of state funds. As I said before, make it a means-tested
entitlement, and I would agree with it in principle as a way to keep
smart college bound kids in NC. But if you are giving it to a kid
whose parents make $500,000 a year whose first choice is UNC, you are
wasting tax-dollars.

As far as the elephant in the living room: yes, abso-fucking-lutely.
It is in all of our best interests to have smart well educated kids.
Any kid who can succeed in college should be sent. If their parents
can pay that's great. If not, I would much rather have my taxes go to
educating a kid than killing kids. However, while I think talent
should be a criteria, I think means testing is necessary too. And a
non-means tested entitlement for a school whose median income is
double the state average is not a good use of the scarce funding we do
put toward education.

"If some alternative were being proposed, then we could ask 'Is the
alternative a better way than what we're doing now?'  But all I see is
a proposal to get rid of the grant and replace it with nothing.
Therefore the only relevant question is 'Is doing nothing a better way
to accomplish our goals than what we're now doing?'"

Sorry, no. The ends don't always justify the means. Nor does (in this
case) some benefit justify a wasteful entitlement. The fact that X
dollars from state lotteries goes to education does not justify their
existence (since historically they add nothing to school funding
because while X is added to funding from the lottery, quite soon X is
subtracted from other funding streams and lotteries are a regressive
tax on poor people who can't do math.)

Similarly, you don't always have to have 'data' from an empiric study
to justify a decision. I have never tried this, so can give you no
empiric data to support my decision not to do it, but I am not putting
my hand in a garbage disposal and flipping the switch to 'on'.

"The question is whether this will be a) the difference between
attending college in North Carolina or attending college in another
state, and b) making a life and career in North Carolina or making a
life and career in another state."

That's exactly what I said, if you'd read my post. I essentially
dismissed the 'college or not' effect Douglass talked about as being
miniscule. However asking the question that way provides insight into
my suggestion. Make it a certain entitlement for kids whom that money
will change their decision. Its not going to effect the decision of
kids whose parents are flat out wealthy. It is however going to
strongly effect the decision of kids whose parents are middle class or
lower. So make it a guarantee for all kids whose families live at or
below 6xFPL (data that I can get you in 2 seconds from anyone's
FAFSA.) For two parents with one kid, 6xFPL in 2006 is about $100,000.
For a family of 4 it is $120,000. I think that is more than generous
enough to make it a significantly differential benefit (over the
already inexpensive cost of in-state tuition in the UNC system.) For
that matter, a little more than half of NCSSM would qualify by that
measure since median income is about 80K.

"So roughly a quarter of NCSSM students have been kept in North
Carolina for college (maybe a little lower, depending on how many of
these kids were diverted to UNC schools from a non-UNC school in North
Carolina).  So for the part that can yet be measured, it seems to be
working quite nicely."

Again, read my post. I agree that there is a benefit to be had.
However I also realize that the benefit evaporates when you talk about
wealthy families. One of my calssmates from a wealthy family turned
down a Morehead so her parents could pay for her to attend Harvard.
You really think a $1700 per semester entitlement is going to affect
that person's decisions? If you means test it, you will pay keep that
25% additional in the UNC system, but you won't waste it on very
affluent kids who would attend UNC anyway.

"FWIW, I ended up settling around Virginia Tech, where I ended up
going to college.  I would likely have ended up in NC if the tuition
grant had been available.  I don't know what else might have gone
differently, of course, but I probably would have stayed in-state for
college at least.  Given my proclivities, I might well have ended up
working on Linux stuff somewhere in or around RTP."

Great anecdote. And I went to the UNC system for 8 years (10 if you
count SM) and have not lived in NC since. I've been back twice to talk
at UNC and spend time with my point foundation scholar. I think I've
spent maybe $3K there since I left.

But then what we now have is the plural of anecdote: 'not data.' ;)

I am not arguing it isn't an attraction. I'm not arguing that kids who
go to school in NC are more likely to stay there. What I am arguing is
that this benefit evaporates when you are talking about the wealthy.
So lets take your hypothetical a step further: If your parents were
quite wealthy and you had a free ride at any school you wanted to
attend, where would you have gone? However, your parents were not
wealthy, so money made part of the decision for you. You just proved
my point with your example. ;)

Nick