Jim, why the hell do you think everything has to break down to liberalism and libertarianism? The university is not a federal government and does not have to live within any political boundaries other than its own. Your ideologies only apply to our republic, not the university. If you attend a school, you live by their rules. Your only vote is with your paid-in-full tuition; otherwise, shut up.

Good column and more specifically great question: Why should some students pay for other students tuition? I think administration will try to answer it by saying this university needs more diversity because more diversity improves everyone’s education. I, on the other hand, think lower tuition is good for everyone’s education and that raising tuition prices is not worth the diversity that this money will supposedly bring.

1. Subsidizing others: There are two types of subsidies - out of state subsidising in state and rich subsidising the poor. The former is rationalized given that this a state university using state dollars and hence should disproportionately benefit state residents. The latter is essential especially since one of the missions of a public university is to stay affordable - meaning those who cannot pay need to be able to get the opportunity to go to a good school such as UW-Madison.

2. L&S benefiting more than other colleges: If L&S improves, the entire university benefits. Engg school take a number of courses at L&S. A better justification is this - I am willing to bet that the benefit to engineering students outweighs costs by more for engg. students than students in L&S. Engg. school has huge commitments to labs and equipment unlike many of the Humanities and Social Science disciplines. It’s time they paid more. I’d go even further. Wiley made a number of initiatives that disproportionally benefited the Engg. school and perhaps the pure sciences in L&S. L&S on the whole suffered when he was Chancellor - it is time that is reversed.

3. Redistribution: There is a redistribution in every aspect of public policy. The tax code is progressive. Social security and medicare disproportionally benefit the poor. Why should a public university be any different? Even private universities have differential tuition. Harvard charges 0 tuition for students whose parents earn less than 200,000 or so.

4. 1. Pretty much the same point as point 1.

I really don’t think you have 5 distinct points.

Another way to think of the benefit to engineering students this is the following (nothing specific about Engineering, but you used that as an example). Some majors are incredibly popular now. They need more resources. One option is to fire more faculty in less popular majors (a horrible idea). Another is to raise more money in a politically feasible manner to deal with the rising popularity of a few majors. The latter benefits Engineering students in that we are not firing engineering faculty to reallocate money away from the now not so popular major (in engg.) to the now popular majors (in L&S)

“I believe in wealth redistribution.” Barrack Hussein Obama. The actions of one marxist emboldens others, as Biddy Martin is demonstrating.

Eric Holder declared “America is a Nation of Cowards”. Are you? If you silently acquiesce to this crap, you are. You COULD set up a flash mob occupation of Biddy Martin’s office and express your grievances in the direct terms that Liberals and Marxists condone. OR you can do nothing and prove Eric Holder is correct.

I worked and paid my own way through college and earned a BS and MS engineering degree. To all of those similarly poor kids out there, you can do it also. You don’t need to steal someone elses money to be successful. You are not a victim and you cannot justify being a self esteemed thief. You just need your own determination and unswerving resolve to succeed. It means hard work, long days, and little time for social activities. It means working while class mates are partying in Florida on spring break. It means learning self discipline and self respect, rather than perceiving yourself as an victim. It means taking responsibility for yourself and working hard to change your circumstances for the better. You can do it. You can do it without the personal degradation of taking stolen goods from wealth thieving marxists. You will never be a victim again.

Now get out there and tell Biddy Martin and all of the thieving marxists like Anon-i-mouse 7:05am to “go to hell”!

Wow, gives me great perspective to see how whiney the opposition party sounds when they’re out of power. I’ll remember this if Republicans ever return to power. Sorry about all my sniveling during the Bush years.

Biddy’s initiative is much needed. And UW definitely needs to stay affordable and so need based aid (or tuition) is also essential. I guess the 80K threshold is debatable. But so is any other number. If this were lower, say 60K as in Doyle’s budget, it would be equally arbitrary. As one of the postings above indicates, Harvard’s cut-off is at 200K. Regardless of whether 80K is right, raising tuition here at UW is essential for greater access to courses.

It’s not like this is some radical shift in university policy towards redistribution of wealth. The university already provides grants and need-based aid to students who otherwise could not afford to attend. Biddy’s initiative is just addressing some holes in that policy. If you’re against the wealthy paying for the tuition of the poor, then you should a) stop paying tuition now, because you’re already contributing to it, and b) stop paying any taxes that go to the state of Wisconsin, because those fund financial aid as well.

We all pay segregated fees. But I don’t utilize the health service, or rec sports, or the ‘student government’ and all the subsidized student orgs, or spend much time in the Union. I am subsidizing those creeps that do! Wah! Wah! Blubber!

Let’s boil this down to what it really is- just another stealth tax on wealth. if you earn too much, here is yet another thing you’ll pay more for.

Jim, I don’t know why you keep writing these articles? I know what argument you’re going to make before I read the first sentence. You’re not wrong, nor is your logic faulty, and the articles themselves are almost always quite well written. However, you could replace every single one of your articles with one line and get the same point across, “I’m an amoral libertarian.”

Of course you object to Biddy’s proposal. It’s based on a principle of social responsibility. There is nothing I could argue that would change your mind; your personal philosophy is as clear as it is deeply entrenched in your psyche. But there is nothing in your arguments that would sway anyone with any notion of collective responsibility. The two philosophies, both valid as ideas, are diametrically opposed. You’re trying to reconcile apples and oranges.

Stephen Christensen

As a public university, UW-Madison has a responsibility to provide opportunities to as wide a range of students as possible. I can appreciate one’s desire to not have their wealth redistributed to those who are relatively in need, but in this country we help each other out a little. Its not Marxism either, for god’s sake. High-quality and affordable public education serves the goals of good citizenship and the Wisconsin Idea, and that trumps one’s selfish desire to be rich as all hell. Sorry, but I think the 80,000+ crowd can make it OK…

“Engg. school has huge commitments to labs and equipment unlike many of the Humanities and Social Science disciplines. It’s time they paid more.”

Engineering students already pay differential tuition (i.e. ~I pay $700 more a semester).

Jim,

BH opinion readers understand your attitude and your ideology; every piece you write restates it for us clearly and eloquently, we get it. Unfortunately, your argument is based on ideology and not fact, and thus you are not going to convince anyone of anything because the question is not about who is “right” but simply where different peoples priorities lie. Biddy is not wrong in what she is doing, she just has different goals than you do.

Please, for all of us, write an article from a new perspective. You are a great writer but you are doing yourself and us a huge disservice by continuning to demonstrate an apparent lack of breadth when it comes to knowledge. I look forward to hearing something new from you, Jim, but if not, I’m just going to have to continue skimming your articles…

1:56- People realize that taxes already contribute to tuition. That’s the problem! People who make more money already get taxed more and it’s the government’s job to tax NOT the UW administration’s job to decide that people who make $80,000 still owe more money to pay for other people’s education. And in fact, the UW adding to tuition is even worse because families who are paying this know their money isn’t going to their own children- it’s going to aid other children. At least when the government taxes these families, the families know that at least some of their money is going toward their own child’s education. And even though a lot of peopel say UW needs the money, they STILL ignore the fact that just because a family makes over $80,000 does not mean the parents are paying for tuition. In those cases, UW is asking students already drowning in debt to swallow a tuition increase so tuition can be cheaper for other people. Seems like putting some students in more debt to get other studetns out of it defeats the purpose of this tuition increase.

“However, you could replace every single one of your articles with one line and get the same point across, “I’m an amoral libertarian.”“

That greatly depends on how you define morality. I’m sure Jim would say that you’re an amoral non-libertarian.

to 6:30, So what about the kids who have parents that make 80K and pay for college on their own? No aid is coming their way, but because they live with their parents in the summer, they also can’t claim to be independents and take advantage of financial aid. Also, 80K really isnt that much if you have 2 kids in college, a house and 2 cars, so it really boils down to one group being punished (the poor get aid and the rich can afford it). I am one of these people, why should I (or if my parents paid, they) have to pay extra? I am also a double major, both in L&S, but I think this initiative is something that should be rethought and altered before being put into effect, because all of the other people in different schools get screwed.

It’s not just the $80,000 thing. One of the problems is that many students who don’t have parents making over that mark pay for their own tuition and are only listed as a dependent for health insurance. We all know how much ass UHS sucks. It’s dumb to make a student choose from having decent health insurance or paying more tuition.

Also, what about a family making $79,000. Is tuition really that much less affordable for them? What about a family making $85,000 with two kids in school? It’s less affordable for them than putting one kid through at $80,000 per year. If Biddy really wants to be fair she should institute the change on a sliding scale.

Jim, if you are so ideologically opposed to measures like these, I suggest you do what a true supporter of the unbridled free market would do: go to another school. Take your money elsewhere and give it to a school that is more in line with your politics.

To April 8, 2009 @ 5:49pm, Stephen Christensen

The difference is his personal philosophy doesnt force anything on you, while your personal philosophy forces responsibilities on others. His philosophy argues that his rights should not be infringed, your philosophy demands rights from him. You can say its pointless to argue because he’ll never change your mind and you’re both entitled to an opinion. However I’d argue that while you’re entitled to an opinion, you are not entitled to carry out your opinion if it infringes the rights of another human, and if you do so people like Jim (rational humans) will always be compelled to argue against you.

I agree with one of the posters above - Jim does not have 5 different point. It seems more like 2 or 3 points. Looks like this guy is out of ideas. Cannot believe he is a grad student. Yes, L&S will benefit more than the other colleges but L&S produces most of the credits in the University.

Also, Jim has a weird notion of fairness - if he even has one. In the field of education (especially public), equality of opportunity (fairness) is typically taken to mean that one’s background should not affect in anyway the decision to go to college or stay in college, all else equal. Maintaining this principle calls for greater aid to students from poorer backgrounds so that they can have an equal footing.

Jim - either you aren’t trying to persuade anyone to agree with you, or you never got the hang of debating. Every time I read one of your columns, I hate you a little bit more. You sound arrogant and conceited, with a holier-than-thou attitude. I agree with Stephen - you are nothing but an amoral libertarian. Your views are irreconcilable with anyone who cares about anything but their own self-interest.

Notice that I merely pointed out that students’ top concerns amount to a moral issue and that this issue is important and deserves rational discussion. I also argued that most people are not open to discussing the issue. The response so far demonstrates this in spades.

The very possibility of discussing competing moral views is regarded as blasphemous.

Ideology doesn’t apply to the University, they say, so just “shut up.” Redistribution of wealth is “in every aspect of public policy” and is not “some radical shift” in policy, they say, so why question it? If you’re against the current moral view, go to another school or leave the state, they say. You have a different view? Stop your whining and “Wah! Wah!”

Ideology has nothing to do with fact or who’s right, they say, it’s just a matter of having different goals and who can say what goals are right? Yours is a philosophic difference and there’s no point in discussing philosophic issues, they say. You’re just an “amoral libertarian[!]” and I hate you.

These are the kinds of responses generated by merely suggesting that there are other moral viewpoints and these warrant discussion. To this I can only restate the following:

“As members of a university environment we should not blindly accept even the most basic ideas governing our lives and our institutions. In regard to moral ideals we should not be asking what Jesus would do or what society wants; we should be asking what is true.”

10:17 please shut the hell up. Good for you, you made your way through school, but there are millions more out there who don’t have the same opportunities, whose parents don’t make any kind of money, who have had minimum wage jobs their entire life, who come from the inner-city and school systems that are struggling and who have a million obstacles things standing in the way of their success. And if for one second you think that by asking for support from a system that has continuously failed them, that they are stealing from the wealthy, then I pity you and the education you have received. You would think that someone who has lived it, would learn from it. Please get off of your pedestal.

Jim raises three issues (not 5! as one of the posters above mentions) and calls for a rational discussion. I have been following these comments and I am going to gather, what in my view, are the best rational responses.

1. Out of state vs in-state: “Out of state subsidies are rationalized given that this a state university using state dollars and hence should disproportionately benefit state residents.”

2. Engg. students vs. L&S: “Engg. school students should pay since they take a large chunk of their credits at L&S. And so they benefit too.” Dean Sandefur has an excellent article on this.

3. Is it fair?: “In the field of education (especially public), equality of opportunity (fairness) is typically taken to mean that one’s background should not affect in anyway the decision to go to college or stay in college, all else equal. Maintaining this principle calls for greater aid to students from poorer backgrounds so that they can have an equal footing.”

These are very good, rational responses to the questions Jim posed.

to 1:35,

10:17 might be (or actually is) right. Do you have statistics on how many kids there are that fit this category of two parents on minimum wage that attended a bad school and came here? For the sake of argument, lets say its as high as 10-15% (which I think all of us know is unlikely by looking at this Coastie/white middle class Sconnie school). Where will all of this money come from? What happens when too many kids get to take advantage of these benefits and the quality of the university goes down as more funds are diverted every year to help more and more kids instead of keeping professors and buildings up to the high standards?

Also, as he lived it, I hardly think you can call him out on his life. Get off your soapbox, it’s a lot taller than his “pedestal.”

“2. Engg. students vs. L&S: “Engg. school students should pay since they take a large chunk of their credits at L&S. And so they benefit too.” Dean Sandefur has an excellent article on this.”

As long as they restrict the money to paying for 100 and 200 level intro classes that everyone takes, this is a legitimate argument. To my knowledge, the administration hasn’t made this promise and until they do engineering students are going to keep complaining. There is no reason to charge us extra for less benefits.

8:09pm, I think you are accurate in saying that fairness is typically taken to mean “equality of opportunity.” But is this notion of “fair” justified?

“Equality of opportunity,” as used by egalitarians means equality of goods and services like education and health care. But these are values have to be created by individuals - they don’t exist in nature.

Claiming that one’s background should not affect in anyway the decision to go to college (or receive medical treatment), is a nice sentiment if these values could be commanded into existence, but they can’t. Values like education and health care must be created, so demanding equality of opportunity means destroying one person’s opportunities for the sake of another.

Because values must be created, using force to attempt to equalize “opportunity” amounts to making one person a slave to another. This is hardly fair.

Fairness, in my view, means equality before the law. It means equality of rights. Every individual should be treated as sovereign regardless of race, background or income. Sacrificing one person to increase another’s opportunities is immoral.

“so demanding equality of opportunity means destroying one person’s opportunities for the sake of another.”

I see this kind of zero-sum thinking in a lot of your columns, Jim, and I want you to actually justify it rather than claim it as fact. A wealthy student still has wonderful opportunities regardless of how much they aid others through taxes etc…that’s the definition of being wealthy, having more than you need. And in the US, a lot of people have waaaay more than they need. On the other hand, funding for students who are capable and qualified, but who do not have the financial means, creates opportunity where none existed. This is why “sharing” is understood by most people to not be harmful to the person who shares. The implication is that the rising tide raises all boats.

9:10pm:

It is precisely zero-sum thinking I’m against. I’m against the idea that one person’s wealth is at the expense of another. It is not.

What you’re arguing for could be termed “infinite-sum.” This is the idea that wealth just pops into existence somehow - that a wealthy student just happens to have wealth and “regardless of how much they aid others through taxes” that wealth will still be there.

Taking one person’s wealth and giving it to another destroys some of the wealthy person’s opportunities. The wealth taken from that person could have been used to help their children, buy a new car, start a business, etc. These are opportunities that have been taken from them. The “opportunity” that a recipient of welfare receives is NOT created where none existed, it is opportunity taken from another person.

Also the idea that one person has the right to decide when another person has “more than they need,” is immoral. Life is about living the best, most fulfilling life possible. There is no such thing as “more than you need.” There is always more prosperity to be had. There is always better medical research to invest in, business ideas that could be tried, vacations that could be taken, etc.

This constant focus on “need” is destructive. Life is not merely about meeting basic physical needs. Living fully as a human means working to reach one’s highest potential and achieving ones highest goals and aspirations.

Finally, forcibly ceasing wealth is not “sharing.”

Jim,

I would also like to bring up the point that every family is different in supporting their college student. My parents make more than the arbitrary yet round $80,000 per year. They help me out when they can, but I will still have close to $30,000 in loan debt once I get done. What a family is supposed to pay according to the university and what they do pay are two very different things, and I think it is outside of the university’s bounds to send bills in varying amounts. I think equal treatment is the brilliance of state institutions.