The organization that arranges the matching is called DiscoverScholars.org, and the guiding principle is that a direct matching process is more transparent, accountable and efficient than the current system schools have in place.
Their blog links to an article in the Princeton Weekly which discusses the distortionary pressures large endowment-subsidized tuitions can create in the competitive marketplace of higher education. While Princeton might make be making education “universal” for its own students, the subsidy places tremendous upward price pressure on student tuitions across the board at other schools (especially Columbia). As DiscoverScholar observes:
…historically elite learning institutions have much greater endowments and other financial resources at their fingertips. These resources allow them to offer a better product and cheaper tuition to prospective students (which they will compensate for through interest on their endowments and subsequent alumni donations over coming years). As a result, students accepted to a Princeton or Harvard face virtually no quality vs. price trade-off.
As I’ve written before, while SIPA has a $30 million endowment to support about 1200 students, the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton boasts a $558 million (endowment) for 200 students. As a result, not only is SIPA’s “percentage of revenue generated via tuition” double that of Princeton’s, but we have more inter-program competition for jobs and higher student-to-faculty ratios, including in the career services office. (This does not even mention the fact that WWS offers tuition reimbursement for public sector committments, something SIPA could not even dream of doing).
As I’ve also written before, both here and for the Morningside Post, amassing student debt prohibits the student’s decision to enter the public sector. The Review article mentions that a 2007 study co-authored by Princeton professors Cecilia Rouse and Jesse Rothstein found that even an extra $10,000 in debt greatly diminishes the odds that a graduate will take a public-service or other lower-paying job.
The sad part is that Columbia’s program for International Affairs is incongruently structured to allow students to pursue those jobs. You have a situation where a bunch of former Peace Corps volunteers are looking to get more formal training in economic development or non-profit management, and they’re expected to pay $40,000 in tuition and fees per year out of pocket? Seriously? (Note: I swear to God I will CACKLE into the phone if Columbia ever has the nerve to call me up for alumni donations).
Anyway, it would be nice to really compete competitively for financial aid based on a transparent matching process than to play the pray and hope and wait (based on misleading information) smokey-room system Columbia currently subscribes to. (Still angry).
Since I consider myself both a partial-consumer and full-time observer of mass American culture, I like to think that, at any given moment, I have a thumb pretty close to the pulse of what’s popular in the United States.
This is not to say that I read US Weekly diligently, or watch American Idol. Only that I know that such things exist; have engaged with them enough to understand them; and appreciate that they and the contents within are massively popular across a broad audience.
Every so often, however, I learn something about my country that really knocks me off my kilter. Most recently, it was that the show “Big Brother” has been on a major television network for 10 freaking seasons(!!!)
Now, while I’ve heard of the show, I don’t understand its premise, and I’ve never watched it. Moreover, I cannot recall ever having a conversation with a single friend who has watched the show. I have friends who watch pure crap — Gossip Girl, Tila Tequila, The Hills, The Bachelorette, Bad Girls Club– I’ve even known people who watched Survivor well into its dying years (is that still on the air?) But nowhere within my six degrees of separation do I know a single person who watches Big Brother.
(Note: this is not an exaggeration. I just did an advanced profile search on facebook and not one of my 358 “friends” has Big Brother listed as a TV show he or she watches. I’m sure we’d find similar results with The Mole, but that’s another post entirely).
My larger point here is that no matter how well I may think I know/understand the people of the country in which I live, the simple truth is that I really don’t.
I mean, insofar as I am a student of economics, I implicitly understand that individuals have divergent preferences, and markets emerge to meet these preferences. And within markets, there are competitors who fight to capture market share by best meeting the majority of consumer preferences, or at a least a segment of the market.
What I don’t understand is why anyone would use Hotmail before Yahoo, or Yahoo before Google. Google is demonstrably better, it offers more space, it crashes less often, it has an embedded chat, it comes with a suite of other products, etc. In my mind, Google should own 100% of the market in terms of e-mail service, because 100% of consumers should recognize that it’s a superior product in an environment where virtually all options are free. What baffles me is people continue to choose inferior products. Why? Why is that?
A few months ago I wrote about how Tide was the preferred detergent of most people, even though detergent seemed like a fairly consistent commodity and Tide was always the most expensive brand. One consumer researcher stated that the less pricey competitor Gain was “the experiential and fragrance brand, and had strong ethnic performance.”
I have two theories here:
1.) Is a matter of education. Education means critical and analytical thinking, including the ability to distinguish and appreciate levels of value. People who are better educated have “more taste,” as it were… or at least know how/when to differentiate between a product that is worthwhile versus one that is cheap/crap.
2.) The second is consumer behavior. People who live on a tighter budget instinticively learn to gravitate to the products that inherently seem cheaper. (Note: this theory is based on my-friends-who-shall-remain-nameless who squeal with delight over any/alloffers from the following restuarants: Olive Garden, Taco Bell, Bob Evans.) They are not concerned with value, per se, only attracted to the least costly option… and this mentality carries through even when the product choices are free/no cost to the consumer.
Anyway, my larger point is, again, I don’t get it, which I think means I’m not the populist I like to make myself out to be. I’m still voting for Obama though.
PS…If you like thinking about consumer choice, you’ll love this TED Talk by Malcolm Gladwell:
From my friend Nick D., who has fully justified his pursuit of a PhD in English Literature, by the composition of a top 10 e-mail of recent memory:
so, i’m currently sitting in the park slope branch of the brooklyn public library, and my day has just been made by a wizened old woman who–only a few short moments ago–walked up to the information desk across the room and whisper-shouted, loud enough to garner the attention of every other person in the building, the words i’ve been waiting my whole life to hear: “WHERE ARE THE JIMMY BUFFETT BOOKS?!”
beleaguered by time and stooped with age, this woman nonetheless evinced a startling and fiery passion for the man who wrote “cheeseburger in paradise.” i have no doubt that it could have fueled a thousand propane grills. god bless her parrot-heart.
i hope you will reflect on this story, and feel free to draw your own morals.
In a previous post, I mentioned that I was testing out an online financial tracking application (based on the Quicken model) called Mint. At the times, I was overall impressed, but had some gripes:
My only problems with Mint is that it mislabels some purchases, and seems to have trouble accessing my ING Savings account.
Just wanted to mention that the ING issue was resolved. Additionally, they’ve added a loan tracker, so I can import Sallie Mae as well. My entire net-worth in one easily updated snap-shot. If you’re comfortable with letting a third-party access your finances, I can’t recommend this site enough.
My boss sent me an e-mail this morning to “Fontifier,” a web-site that scans in your handwriting and outputs it as your very own font. The kid in me said “you should stay on task,” but the adult onset ADD in me said “MAKE THIS NOW!!!!”
Text-Messages is where it gets tricky. I can send/receive 200 texts per month for $5, or do unlimited for $20. Overage is $.70 per text. (What a f*cking racket!)
Game-Plan
Since Sprint has been consistently sucking me dry for using its data-service off-plan, my monthly bills have been averaging around $100-$110 for the past 4 to 5 months. Even if I’m paying $75-80 per month (plus any text overages) to AT&T, I’m definitely saving money in the long run by making the switch.
Although it looks like ETFs are going the way of the dinosaur (or at least will be modified on a pro-rated basis), I’m too impatient to wait for Sprint to adopt a reasonable policy. I’ve heard of people swapping their cell-phone contratual liabilities but I’ll just as soon pay the fee. YOU HEAR ME SPRINT? I’VE BEEN A CUSTOMER SINCE 2002 BUT I’M SICK OF YOUR SHIT!! (I like the idea of PR people trolling small time blogs like mine and reporting back negative consumer reviews to the brand management division).
So yeah. It looks like the real cost of the iPhone, for me at least, will be $335 up front, and about $80 or so per month over 2 years, totaling $2255.
If I stay with Sprint, and continue to be charged $100 per month (for drunkenly checking my G-Mail while waiting for the late night 2 train), it will cost $2400.
So yesterday I asked some of lawerly friends to read over the Great Fellowship Debacle of Ought-Eight and provide counsel, both legal and otherwise. Here are some things I learned:
1.) Lawyers and Summer Associates are either really bored, really prompt, really nerdy, or some combination therein. Of the 12 or so people I asked to take a look, over half responded within 4 hours. So thanks guys.
2.) As one friend put it: “Let’s not get overly litigious just quite yet. I couldn’t get a read on whether you were just online ranting or if you were seriously curious whether you have a legal claim.” I actually was curious if I had a legal claim, but more so because of how little leverage I have otherwise. If you’re one student in a school that hosts over 1300, your tuition’s contribution to the budget is marginal. On the other side of the coin, being one year through a two year master’s leaves me little recourse other than to suck it up, foot the bill, and spend the rest of my life angrily shaking my fist at Columbia on the way to work as I pass it on the public bus from my tenement house in the Bronx.
3.) The consensus (I think) was that I might have a case, but it was weak and probably not worth my time. Even if the statement is a misrepresentation, I would have to prove that it was reasonably reliant (which might be doable, considering I’ve seen it used in other promotional materials, including the admittance package), and then I’d probably have to prove scienter, meaning that the statement was intentionally misleading. Plus there are issues of damages; it’s hard to weight the opportunity cost of the forgone scholarship at GW against the intangible benefits Columbia could argue their degree provides. All in all, again, not worth my time.
4) The most consistent advice is that I try to work this out with the administration. That I explain my situation and write and e-mail explaining my position. There might even be an appeals process I can work through. So I’ve called the Student Affairs Dean and written her the letter… we’ll see what comes of that. It sounds like in the past the administration works to get you a “reader” position (as in reading papers and exams) which is small-commitment/small award fellowship for the first semester, and then get you a Program Assistant fellowship for the second semester (1/4 tuition or $9,000 for 20 hr./wk).
So anyway, there’s still hope, I guess. Will let you know what comes of it.
