There is no defensible formula for pricing signal versus human capital development. And even if there was, what is the benefit of pricing it? Again, reduce Harvard's tuition but don't think it is a counter to the rising cost of education or anything related to justice or access.
And why does everyone suddenly have a single definition of "quality"? Did I miss something?
There is no cost or price of signal. There is no cost or price of human capital development. There is only a rough value of labor market returns to whatever it is we do in schooling and the cost to deliver them relative to demand. There is no price of quality.
There is a price for prestige. There is no agreed upon quality measure and even if there was, it is attached to cost or price. And if all of these things did exist and we agreed upon them, there is no reason to assume they are fixed any time but especially during a pandemic.
Even with all of that, it is not a settled debate that these are the only or best frames for understanding what college is or does.
You can reduce tuition for many reasons. If you reduce it because of delivery method, you undermine an institution's ability to make sound public health decisions. That is counterproductive.
You also exert pressure on competitive schools whose students, costs, and prices are quite different than Harvard. And you introduce unknown long-term risks to everything from institutional structure to reputation.
You can absolutely do those things but do them intentionally, understanding the risks. Lower tuition, by all means. I have a position on that.
But couponing doesn't lower tuition so much as it introduces a new way for those with means to extract more value from institutions at the expense of those who cannot extract that value.
Everyone would be better off saying Harvard just owes students for the trouble and can afford to pay it. Or call it rich people reparations or something. But do not mathwash it.
