Those Damn Poor Kids Taking Up Seats In Public Universities

All the whiny emotions in the world doesn't change the basic economic fact that price controls below market value always create an excess of demand of a limited supply. Denying that basic economic truism is like saying there is no gravity.

You should redirect your misguided emotions and focus on universities which have far too many employees, overpay for contracts due to prevailing wage rules, and have too many high-paid professors who don't even teach classes. Ohio Universities are models of inefficiency, with tenure systems which resemble the Soviet communist party organization.

First, flaw is the unsupported assumption that a tuition freeze would bring state tuition below fair market value. Given that Ohio has one of the highest "public" tuition rates in the nation, and one of the highest number of graduates attending universities out of state, and with Ohio tuition increase higher than the average rate of higher education inflation, it would seem that there is some possible "give" in the tuition rate where a "freeze" caused by an increase in state subsidies (i.e. other sources of funding which prevent the need for the economic actor to raise prices to cover expenses) does not equate to overdemand.

The other is that Matty is a hypocrite. If he truly believed that "taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for government grants and scholarships, since they simply allow universities to increase their tuition- Why? Because it increases the available money supply," then I'm sure that he lived true to his belief and insisted that he and his parents not accept the state subsidy for in-state tuition while he attended The Ohio State University, refused to accept any funding from the Ohio Instructional Grant, or took any Stafford or Direct Loans (subsidized or unsubsidized, but guaranteed by the Federal Government.)

The third is the laughable premise that education is a limited economic good like lumber or coal. Only in Matty's head is knowledge and understanding a scarce supply. Education is an economic factor, just like capitialization, restraints on trade, etc. It is not strictly a good.

The other is this notion that apparently George Washington and the other Founding Fathers of this country, in addition to the Founding Fathers of this State, and President Abraham Lincoln were misguided  communists when they created land-grant universities to provide higher education to the public. You know, universities like The Ohio State University.

And of course, he conveniently ignores that the economic prosperity of the 1950s was created, in large part, by the opening up of access to wealth to the middle class caused by the widespread availability to a college education created by the GI Bill after the WWII. Replacing a "non-profit" public good economic theory in higher education with a "for-profit" business good economic theory of higher education would result in a further pricing out of higher education which would be disasterous to our economy.

I, for one, know that I would mostly likely not be a college graduate, let alone a law school graduate, if it was not for the in-state tuition subsidy and state and federal financial aid assistance.  And the economy is better off having people like me have more economic oppportunities as a result of being better educated than it would if it let market forces purely dictate who did and did not receive a college education.