If you were to log in, you'd be able to get more information on your fellow community member.
For someone who depends so heavily on an economics argument, you certainly don’t use it very well. Is it not possible that MIT students are going to the highest paying jobs because those are where they are most needed. That is how the free market works. If you would like to argue using economics, than you should know that MIT practices first degree price discrimination. Since perfect competition is impossible since entry is difficult among elite schools, first degree price discrimination is economically most efficient because it allows those most impoverished to attend. (Incidentally, you neglect to mention that MIT refused to comply with the justice department ruling, and in the end, thanks to MIT’s efforts, the ruling was overturned by Act of Congress.) So you argue, that charging nothing also allows the most impoverished to attend. Fine. However, I always hate arguments that make college education at elite schools cheaper for students. Any such plan basically represents ...
I am amused that the comment I left 4 years ago, garnered replies. I am also amused that as the current Lecturer of Stanford's class on public economics, I am actually covering this topic in my class next week. Elite universities like Harvard maintain their elite status not by a high price, but by having rigorous need-blind entry standards. Harvard happily only charges the poor as much as what the federal government believes they are able to pay. The reason they don't make it free for all, is that sadly, most of the students that have sufficient preparation to handle the rigor a school like Harvard or Stanford (or to a lesser extent MIT) have parents with loads of cash. It seems stupid to waste money, whether Harvards or the governments, paying for the education of the children of the rich.