I just finished Mary McCarthy's The Group, which follows a Vassar class of 1933 where they all spout Marxist beliefs that they learned in college, and the most vehement are the men who want revolution yet live off their wives' wages or inheritance. It was surprising how relevant this book was to today's politics.
I see it with the micro-looters. Everything about them screams "parasites." "Entitled" and "narcissistic" also come to mind. How ironic. Of course, they're mostly trust fund babies and obviously come from wealth.
The career students I went to graduate school with were some of the most inept, indoctrinated automatons I had ever seen. Higher ed is now where independent thinking goes to die. I spent the few years between undergrad and grad working; in terms of experiential distance, it might as well have been decades. The professors—career students par excellence—were not much better. I went from political science to history, which was also revealing.
Another factor in the escalation of college costs are student loans which tend to increase demand as well as enlarge the pool of funds institutions have available. It's similar to how insurance increased the cost of medical care.
Nothing wrong in being a socialist in favour of workers'rights to fair pay, decent time off, sick pay, maternity leave, fre at point of access healthcare. Nor with wanting utilities and infrastructure run to help society and the economy rather than just for profit. Nothing wrong in providing pensions through national insurance so even the lowest paid workers can retire. Nothing wrong in saying the economy is for the people and to sustain what we need and allow all the benefits of culture and relaxation. That's socialism. I think Pope Leo x who said workers should have rights and states and employers obligations would agree. Nothing more conservative than the Catholic Church.
And where is all the money for this coming from? As Margaret Thatcher put it, the problem with socialism is that you run out of other people's money. "Fair" is in the eye of the beholder. There's a huge difference between protective rights and rights to make claims on someone else (for pay not to work, healthcare, pensions, relaxation, etc.).
You build a thriving economy based in agriculture and manufacturing and you trade. And a proportion of the profit from that is taxed to pay for what everyone needs and everyone benefits from. A healthy and educated workforce benefits employers. A free at point of access health system paid for through tax or mandatory and government regulated insurance benefits all since it means an active workforce and disease is prevented through treatment of the sick and vaccination and public health eg clean environments, clean water etc. This system is known as social democracy and involves a mix of private enterprise and public investment, particularly in infrastructure and in protecting industry against unfair competition. It also protects nascent industries so they can grow and prosper.
Nothing wrong with wanting stuff. I think the point of this article is, that hiding the actual costs of getting said stuff sets one up for having unrealistic expectations.
I graduated from the University of Michigan with a degree in English Language and Literature over thirty years ago. Political correctness was ubiquitous from my perspective, probably nascent in hindsight. I always believed that my education taught me how to think, not what to think. Was I an anomaly then? Am I am a relic now? Your headline seemed like so much bullshit that I hear from people who’ve never set foot in a public library, let alone a college campus. But your argument makes sense. I appreciate your insight into all that is college beyond just classroom instruction. This will be self-perpetuating as costs keep kids like me, who worked his way through college, from ever contemplating university. The economic illiterate are really tiresome. They don’t even want to hear about Hayek, Hazlitt, or Sowell.
An absolute bulls-eye! Very well explained. Though you haven't allowed me to feel any less embarrassed to be part of it (CU faculty). CU should have a Snowball Support Group, and a Boxer Club.
Not gonna lie, I'm extremely far-left in terms of politics but I still respect this kind of content because you're backing up your claims with clear reasoning and sometimes citations. It made me rethink many things. Keep it up 👍
The analysis here leaves some big gaps: 1) more socialist than public school? Would you make public school market-based? 2) most funded services are used by almost no one, but it takes weeks/months to get an appt? 3) orgs that “only throw parties” are bad, but I’m pretty sure that letting students keep their money would result in more parties, not fewer. 4) Financial aid is non-transparent? 5 minutes on Google yields a ton of info on financial aid, far more than you’ll find about pricing at almost any private-sector company. This piece feels like it wasn’t researched at all, and no attempt was made to test the assertions. Ok, I sympathize w some of the points. And the thesis could have led in some interesting directions (faculty hiring?) that might have challenged someone who hasn’t already bought your whole line. But that wasn’t this piece. Maybe lead by presenting it as a rant—we all need to let one off sometimes—not a serious analysis.
Nice connection here between education and economics. When I was a student, I never understood why I was forced to pay for school services I never wanted/needed and had no intention of ever using.
As a professor, I would often talk to my students about where the money for their "scholarships" and "financial aid" actually came from. They had no idea that it was other people--sometimes through generous giving, more often through the force of government--that paid their way to be there. They just assumed things were free/discounted because of something they had earned. I would have them look at each other in class and realize that they likely received money from the pocket of their own classmates. Those discussions usually helped to damper some of their entitlement. When they started to realize that their goofing around in class and getting low grades by not giving effort came at the expense of people sitting right next to them, that tended to help them get a bit more focused.
I stopped reading after you wrote “no one was surprised to learn that the majority of his supporters held four-year university degrees.” Not true! He had overwhelming support among South Asians and poor people.
Here: “The top 10 neighborhoods where he gained the most since the primary are all located in either southeast Queens or the eastern parts of Brooklyn — in historically Black neighborhoods”
Yes, I agree completely. All the extra amenities should be paid for completely separately from tuition. Most universities already treat on-campus housing as a separate line item, so there are already precedents for this.
And state and federal governments should absolutely not be paying for these amenities via tuition subsidies. If parents want the Club Med experience for their children, fine, then they can pay for it separately.
While it's not impossible that things have changed in recent years, when I was in college even the most expensive schools charged less in "sticker price" tuition than the total per-student cost. So it isn't (or wasn't) true that full-price students were subsidizing financial aid for others. That's certainly not true at public schools, where taxpayer funding covers a substantial portion of the total bill. I don't disagree with the overall premise, but I think you've overstated some of the details.
The article opens by claiming Mamdani is a "socialist mayor" when he actually identifies as a **democratic socialist**—a significant distinction. Democratic socialism supports regulated capitalism with strong social safety nets, not the abolition of private property. This mischaracterization sets up a strawman argument throughout the piece. [bbc](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ceq01l8reqlo)
### Slippery Slope Fallacy
The author suggests that because colleges provide bundled services, students will inevitably become Marxists who can't understand market economics. This assumes a direct, inevitable causal chain without evidence: "college bundles services → students don't see costs → students become communists." There's no empirical support for this linear progression. [cnn](https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/04/politics/nyc-mayor-zohran-mamdani-wins)
### False Equivalence
Comparing university service bundling to "miniature communist societies" conflates centrally-planned totalitarian economies with institutions that offer inclusive services. By this logic, health insurance, gym memberships, and Amazon Prime would also be "communist" since they bundle services for a flat fee.
The article claims 40% of spending goes to "academic support, student services, and other institutional support," framing this as wasteful. However, this category includes essential services like registrar activities (enrollment, transcripts, degree auditing), accessibility services for disabled students, career counseling, and mental health support—not frivolous perks. [collegedata](https://www.collegedata.com/resources/pay-your-way/whats-the-price-tag-for-a-college-education)
### Straw Man Argument on Financial Aid
The author claims wealthy students subsidize poor students through tuition redistribution. However, research shows the **opposite** is often true: wealthy students increasingly receive merit aid that exceeds their need, while low-income students receive proportionally less. One study found top-income students were **280 times more likely** to receive grants beyond their need compared to bottom-income students. [newamerica](https://www.newamerica.org/insights/colleges-giving-more-financial-aid-to-wealthy-students/)
## Why This Article Is Harmful
### Bad Faith Framing
The piece presents itself as economic analysis but operates primarily through **inflammatory language** designed to trigger emotional responses rather than critical thinking. Terms like "woke indoctrination camps," "Marxist propaganda," and describing student groups as wanting to "murder me" are rhetorical manipulation, not reasoned argument.
### Dehumanization of Student Activism
The author's claim that their tuition funded Students for Justice in Palestine, "a group that periodically declared their desire to murder me," is an extreme characterization that conflates political criticism of Israel with literal death threats. This weaponizes personal grievance to delegitimize all progressive student organizing.
### Ignoring Structural Context
The article completely ignores **why** college costs have risen: massive state disinvestment in public higher education, administrative bloat driven by compliance requirements, the amenities arms race to attract full-paying students, and the shift from education as public good to privatized commodity. Instead, it blames mental health services and student clubs.
### Promoting a Harmful Vision
The "opt-in" model proposed would create **two-tiered education** where wealthy students access comprehensive support while lower-income students can only afford bare-bones instruction. Research shows student support services—especially mental health counseling, academic advising, and career services—significantly improve retention and graduation rates, particularly for first-generation and marginalized students. [forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwood/2025/11/20/student-support-is-now-on-par-with-academic-prestige-and-tuition-costs/)
I just finished Mary McCarthy's The Group, which follows a Vassar class of 1933 where they all spout Marxist beliefs that they learned in college, and the most vehement are the men who want revolution yet live off their wives' wages or inheritance. It was surprising how relevant this book was to today's politics.
I see it with the micro-looters. Everything about them screams "parasites." "Entitled" and "narcissistic" also come to mind. How ironic. Of course, they're mostly trust fund babies and obviously come from wealth.
The career students I went to graduate school with were some of the most inept, indoctrinated automatons I had ever seen. Higher ed is now where independent thinking goes to die. I spent the few years between undergrad and grad working; in terms of experiential distance, it might as well have been decades. The professors—career students par excellence—were not much better. I went from political science to history, which was also revealing.
Another factor in the escalation of college costs are student loans which tend to increase demand as well as enlarge the pool of funds institutions have available. It's similar to how insurance increased the cost of medical care.
Nothing wrong in being a socialist in favour of workers'rights to fair pay, decent time off, sick pay, maternity leave, fre at point of access healthcare. Nor with wanting utilities and infrastructure run to help society and the economy rather than just for profit. Nothing wrong in providing pensions through national insurance so even the lowest paid workers can retire. Nothing wrong in saying the economy is for the people and to sustain what we need and allow all the benefits of culture and relaxation. That's socialism. I think Pope Leo x who said workers should have rights and states and employers obligations would agree. Nothing more conservative than the Catholic Church.
And where is all the money for this coming from? As Margaret Thatcher put it, the problem with socialism is that you run out of other people's money. "Fair" is in the eye of the beholder. There's a huge difference between protective rights and rights to make claims on someone else (for pay not to work, healthcare, pensions, relaxation, etc.).
You build a thriving economy based in agriculture and manufacturing and you trade. And a proportion of the profit from that is taxed to pay for what everyone needs and everyone benefits from. A healthy and educated workforce benefits employers. A free at point of access health system paid for through tax or mandatory and government regulated insurance benefits all since it means an active workforce and disease is prevented through treatment of the sick and vaccination and public health eg clean environments, clean water etc. This system is known as social democracy and involves a mix of private enterprise and public investment, particularly in infrastructure and in protecting industry against unfair competition. It also protects nascent industries so they can grow and prosper.
Nothing wrong with wanting stuff. I think the point of this article is, that hiding the actual costs of getting said stuff sets one up for having unrealistic expectations.
Even if that’s so, it doesn’t really excuse colleges for wasting money on prestige”
I graduated from the University of Michigan with a degree in English Language and Literature over thirty years ago. Political correctness was ubiquitous from my perspective, probably nascent in hindsight. I always believed that my education taught me how to think, not what to think. Was I an anomaly then? Am I am a relic now? Your headline seemed like so much bullshit that I hear from people who’ve never set foot in a public library, let alone a college campus. But your argument makes sense. I appreciate your insight into all that is college beyond just classroom instruction. This will be self-perpetuating as costs keep kids like me, who worked his way through college, from ever contemplating university. The economic illiterate are really tiresome. They don’t even want to hear about Hayek, Hazlitt, or Sowell.
An absolute bulls-eye! Very well explained. Though you haven't allowed me to feel any less embarrassed to be part of it (CU faculty). CU should have a Snowball Support Group, and a Boxer Club.
Not gonna lie, I'm extremely far-left in terms of politics but I still respect this kind of content because you're backing up your claims with clear reasoning and sometimes citations. It made me rethink many things. Keep it up 👍
Hi I am a social Democrat but a social Conservative.
Democrat and conservative should be lower case. I am from the UK.
The analysis here leaves some big gaps: 1) more socialist than public school? Would you make public school market-based? 2) most funded services are used by almost no one, but it takes weeks/months to get an appt? 3) orgs that “only throw parties” are bad, but I’m pretty sure that letting students keep their money would result in more parties, not fewer. 4) Financial aid is non-transparent? 5 minutes on Google yields a ton of info on financial aid, far more than you’ll find about pricing at almost any private-sector company. This piece feels like it wasn’t researched at all, and no attempt was made to test the assertions. Ok, I sympathize w some of the points. And the thesis could have led in some interesting directions (faculty hiring?) that might have challenged someone who hasn’t already bought your whole line. But that wasn’t this piece. Maybe lead by presenting it as a rant—we all need to let one off sometimes—not a serious analysis.
Nice connection here between education and economics. When I was a student, I never understood why I was forced to pay for school services I never wanted/needed and had no intention of ever using.
As a professor, I would often talk to my students about where the money for their "scholarships" and "financial aid" actually came from. They had no idea that it was other people--sometimes through generous giving, more often through the force of government--that paid their way to be there. They just assumed things were free/discounted because of something they had earned. I would have them look at each other in class and realize that they likely received money from the pocket of their own classmates. Those discussions usually helped to damper some of their entitlement. When they started to realize that their goofing around in class and getting low grades by not giving effort came at the expense of people sitting right next to them, that tended to help them get a bit more focused.
I stopped reading after you wrote “no one was surprised to learn that the majority of his supporters held four-year university degrees.” Not true! He had overwhelming support among South Asians and poor people.
Here: “The top 10 neighborhoods where he gained the most since the primary are all located in either southeast Queens or the eastern parts of Brooklyn — in historically Black neighborhoods”
You should have kept reading.
https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/11/05/who-are-zohran-mamdanis-voters/
CNN: 57% of Mamdani's supporters were college graduates. Cuomo was the choice of the very wealthy and the very poor.
Yes, I agree completely. All the extra amenities should be paid for completely separately from tuition. Most universities already treat on-campus housing as a separate line item, so there are already precedents for this.
And state and federal governments should absolutely not be paying for these amenities via tuition subsidies. If parents want the Club Med experience for their children, fine, then they can pay for it separately.
I go into more detail in this article:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/how-to-make-college-affordable
And universities need to radically cut back on bureaucracy as well:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/universities-need-to-radically-cut
While it's not impossible that things have changed in recent years, when I was in college even the most expensive schools charged less in "sticker price" tuition than the total per-student cost. So it isn't (or wasn't) true that full-price students were subsidizing financial aid for others. That's certainly not true at public schools, where taxpayer funding covers a substantial portion of the total bill. I don't disagree with the overall premise, but I think you've overstated some of the details.
Rosenberger v. Rectors of the University of Virginia
Math undergrad isn’t immune to this virus
## Major Logical Fallacies
### Hasty Generalization & False Premise
The article opens by claiming Mamdani is a "socialist mayor" when he actually identifies as a **democratic socialist**—a significant distinction. Democratic socialism supports regulated capitalism with strong social safety nets, not the abolition of private property. This mischaracterization sets up a strawman argument throughout the piece. [bbc](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ceq01l8reqlo)
### Slippery Slope Fallacy
The author suggests that because colleges provide bundled services, students will inevitably become Marxists who can't understand market economics. This assumes a direct, inevitable causal chain without evidence: "college bundles services → students don't see costs → students become communists." There's no empirical support for this linear progression. [cnn](https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/04/politics/nyc-mayor-zohran-mamdani-wins)
### False Equivalence
Comparing university service bundling to "miniature communist societies" conflates centrally-planned totalitarian economies with institutions that offer inclusive services. By this logic, health insurance, gym memberships, and Amazon Prime would also be "communist" since they bundle services for a flat fee.
### Cherry-Picked Evidence & Misleading Statistics
The article claims 40% of spending goes to "academic support, student services, and other institutional support," framing this as wasteful. However, this category includes essential services like registrar activities (enrollment, transcripts, degree auditing), accessibility services for disabled students, career counseling, and mental health support—not frivolous perks. [collegedata](https://www.collegedata.com/resources/pay-your-way/whats-the-price-tag-for-a-college-education)
### Straw Man Argument on Financial Aid
The author claims wealthy students subsidize poor students through tuition redistribution. However, research shows the **opposite** is often true: wealthy students increasingly receive merit aid that exceeds their need, while low-income students receive proportionally less. One study found top-income students were **280 times more likely** to receive grants beyond their need compared to bottom-income students. [newamerica](https://www.newamerica.org/insights/colleges-giving-more-financial-aid-to-wealthy-students/)
## Why This Article Is Harmful
### Bad Faith Framing
The piece presents itself as economic analysis but operates primarily through **inflammatory language** designed to trigger emotional responses rather than critical thinking. Terms like "woke indoctrination camps," "Marxist propaganda," and describing student groups as wanting to "murder me" are rhetorical manipulation, not reasoned argument.
### Dehumanization of Student Activism
The author's claim that their tuition funded Students for Justice in Palestine, "a group that periodically declared their desire to murder me," is an extreme characterization that conflates political criticism of Israel with literal death threats. This weaponizes personal grievance to delegitimize all progressive student organizing.
### Ignoring Structural Context
The article completely ignores **why** college costs have risen: massive state disinvestment in public higher education, administrative bloat driven by compliance requirements, the amenities arms race to attract full-paying students, and the shift from education as public good to privatized commodity. Instead, it blames mental health services and student clubs.
### Promoting a Harmful Vision
The "opt-in" model proposed would create **two-tiered education** where wealthy students access comprehensive support while lower-income students can only afford bare-bones instruction. Research shows student support services—especially mental health counseling, academic advising, and career services—significantly improve retention and graduation rates, particularly for first-generation and marginalized students. [forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwood/2025/11/20/student-support-is-now-on-par-with-academic-prestige-and-tuition-costs/)
Because the totally suck!