I’m opposed to President Trump’s idea of taking $3 billion in federal grant money from Harvard and giving it to trade schools; however, I’m very much in favor of taking $3 billion from Harvard.
I’m against giving money to trade schools for the same reason I’m against giving money to Harvard. Both assume a nanny-state philosophy: that learning useful information is dependent on government funding. It’s not—and in many cases, the reverse is true. Read books and discuss them with smart people, and you are likely to have a reservoir of well-rounded knowledge and critical thinking skills absent from many of today’s college campuses.
It’s the same big-government political hubris that put fluoride in our water supply. The thinking goes: people are too stupid to take care of their teeth, so we’ll do it for them. (Fluoride, by the way, is a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry.)
OpenTheBooks estimates that Harvard has received $4.4 billion in federal funds since 2017. A ChatGPT search estimates that Harvard has received $45 billion (adjusted for inflation) in federal aid since 1945—primarily in the form of research grants, contracts, and student aid. Harvard is a private school with a $53 billion endowment. Now, I might be a poor country lawyer living outside the fashionable salons inside the Washington Beltway, but I didn’t just roll off the turnip truck.
Money is fungible. Don’t ever believe the smokescreens that it’s not. If the money the feds gave Harvard had been invested using the same strategies as Harvard’s own endowment, the value of this federal money alone would easily exceed $200 billion. Thus, Harvard has received 4 times the value of its endowment from the taxpayer. Did I mention Harvard is a private institution? It’s not hyperbole to suggest that the entirety of Harvard’s endowment would not exist but for taxpayer money.
Do the administration and faculty at Harvard care about students, or are they more concerned with their own pocketbooks and building luxurious fiefdoms? Who wouldn’t want to work in a picturesque village of impressive buildings, filled with perks galore and stuffy, ostentatious titles? The interest on Harvard’s endowment would pay for every student’s $90,000 room and board, but yet professors like its recently defrocked plagiarizing ex-president get paid $900,000/year.
Research grants. Again, I’m just an ole tobacco spittin’ hayseed, but might it be true that most of this research is useless—and really just a way to launder money to the “educrat” class? How much of this “research” benefits taxpayers? For any beneficial research, would the same discoveries have been made by somebody outside the ivy tower if federal funding did not exist? I think I know the answer.
It seems to me that most great inventions are made by people tinkering in garages, not campus buildings. The government expert class—which is almost always wrong—tends to spring from academia, from places like Harvard. The personal computer, the web browser, the iPhone, and almost every major software company—Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, Intuit—were all conceived and developed without government funding or university involvement.
My God, Smith! Do you mean to say that great discoveries can be made without funding for pointy-headed elitists? Yes, my good man! All great discoveries come from the human mind. Good ideas will always attract capital. Government spending—which is almost always reckless, wasteful, and distributed for political reasons—crowds out private investment. Reduce federal spending, and efficient private capital will ride to the rescue, spending less money for greater benefits.
As for trade schools, the best way to learn a skill is through on-the-job training. Giving federal money to trade schools will have the same effect federal money has had on higher education: drastically increased costs.
When I attended the University of Virginia, I could pay my tuition with summer job wages. Luckily for me, my dad covered my tuition, which meant I could spend my money on cheap whiskey and high-quality women. Or was it cheap women and high-quality whiskey? I forget, but I remember, most of what I learned, I could’ve learned on my own.
I don’t believe in college rankings—they’re mostly hooey—but I remember we were nationally ranked #1 in English and #5 in History. These were my departments. Think about it: a 17-year-old kid working a summer job in a sawmill could pay the full cost to attend an “elite” school.
What went wrong? Federal money. It corrupts everything and drives up costs. When the government subsidizes tuition through loans and grants, it drives costs through the roof. “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you.” Run!
Here’s how it works: when students have more money to throw at tuition, colleges and universities raise prices—padding their pockets and building monuments to themselves. It’s a giant money-laundering scheme of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” The tweed-jacket, ascot-wearing, cigarette-holder crowd knows a thing or two about self-preservation.
There must be accreditation standards, degree requirements, and a host of bureaucratic rules foisted upon students—all under the smug assumption that “you poor plebs can’t possibly be educated without our help.” When Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia, there were no degrees. Students learned what they wanted and went home. That’s how it should be. Today’s overlords can’t even grasp the concept. Higher education has been co-opted and institutionalized—like a medieval guild. The consumer must play by their rules instead of controlling what he learns and at what cost.
Want to cut college costs? Cut off federal money. All of it. If you do, a lot of useless white hair ponytailed professors and bloated administrators will be forced to get real jobs. College would become market-based again. Return to the Jeffersonian ideal: let the student be the master of his own education. Let competition flourish among a thousand different methods of learning—from $100,000/year private colleges to self-taught scholars who read and discuss books with smart people.
Encourage employers to evaluate candidates based on personal observation—not the seal of some third-party institution. A recent article in The Atlantic revealed a horrifying trend in academia: students don’t read books. Many have never read a book. They can’t follow nuance or stay in a discussion without distraction. They want pat answers. Most just want a ticket to the job market—not a lust for learning.
I’ve never hired a business-degree student. I’m a liberal arts guy. I want the well-rounded and intellectually curious. All economics stem from understanding human nature and mankind’s struggles throughout the ages. I ask unconventional questions—like their favorite book—and try to spark a discussion about ideas. I couldn’t care less what a university says about them. If more employers did the same, the stranglehold of the academic “guild” would break.
It’s true in all aspects of economics: cut subsidies, eliminate regulation, and give consumers choice, and costs will drop faster than Ted Kennedy’s pants at a Milan fashion show.
