[ChrisLomont]

>Schools in the US charge an absurd amount of tuition compared to schools in Europe/Asia

US schools get far less from the state than Europe and Asia. You can find many school budgets online, including sources of revenue. So this is easy to check. [2] lets you look at country per capita spending on tertiary education - the regions you mention tend to spend significantly more tax dollars than the US does.

The result is that most European and Asian schools get funded by taxpayers, i.e., those not attending university end up helping pay for those who do, while in the US more of the funding is paid by people that attend schools.

Also, the US, as a result, also ends up with a higher percentage of adults with college degrees than those with state sponsored schools [1], since those places tend to make it harder to go to college, since taxpayer pressure on cost reduces opportunity.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_...

[2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TERT.PC.ZS

[joshuaissac]

> [2] lets you look at country per capita spending on tertiary education

The link shows government spending per student as a percentage of GDP per capita, rather than overall government spending per capita. This figure can get distorted when there are more students in the system for any reason (such as due to private investment).

> since those places tend to make it harder to go to college, since taxpayer pressure on cost reduces opportunity.

This does not follow. Rather, having more students decreases the per-student government expenditure figure, even as the burden on the taxpayer stays the same.

As a percentage of GDP, US government expenditure on tertiary education is roughly in the middle of what various countries in Europe spend.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/707557/higher-education-...

[ChrisLomont]

>Rather, having more students decreases the per-student government expenditure figure, even as the burden on the taxpayer stays the same.

That does not follow unless students cost zero to educate.

As more students enter, it costs more.

>As a percentage of GDP,....

And the US educates a larger portion of their population than most (if not all?) European countries. This is why using % of GDP is misleading, since the countries are paying for a different rate of educated people. The cost per student is more applicable, since as those other countries scale up the number educated will necessarily spend more, since on the margin people don't cost zero to educate.

This is why I pointed out the rates of education are different. Comparing a country spending 1% to educate 2% to one spending 3% to educate 10%, only looking at the 1% and 3%, is missing important information.

[joshuaissac]

> That does not follow unless students cost zero to educate

The remaining funding comes from the private sector (e.g. tuition fees).

Comparing the US with Germany, for example, the US spends 0.9% of GDP from public funds and 1.6% of GDP privately for a total of 2.5% of GDP, resulting in 44% of the population being tertiary graduates.

Germany spends 1.1% of GDP from public funds and 0.2% of GDP privately, for a total of 1.3% of GDP, and 27% of its population are tertiary graduates.

So as a proportion of GDP, Germany pays only about half of what the US does, but still manages to have three fifths as many graduates as the US, proportionally. That is better value for money spent overall.

[ChrisLomont]

>The remaining funding comes from the private sector

Again, that does not follow. Adding students means more students will apply for government aid, so more aid will be allocated. Lots of places get paid $X per student from the govt - adding students adds public cost.

So yes, more students means more govt cost. Any student can apply for govt help, and if they meet requirements, they get the aid. They're not told sorry, you're number N+1 and we only fund N. You have to go private funded.

>That is better value for money spent overall.

Germany, (and pretty much all countries) pays far less for all advanced jobs. You cannot hire professors in the US for what you get them for in other countries (Baumol's cost disease, for example), so again this is not an accurate comparison.

>That is better value for money spent overall.

Such things are not linear - educating the last % would cost far more per person than educating the first 1%. Just like making something 50% burglar proof is not half the cost to make something 100% burglar proof. As you reach deeper into the pool of candidates they will take more effort, more time, and more money, per person to educate to some fixed level.