The binding nature of 'early decision' programs prevents accepted students from leveraging competing financial aid offers. This tactic, combined with universities raising prices in lockstep, effectively creates a cartel that maintains total pricing power over families.
The decision for a child to attend college, especially if it involves taking on debt, should not be dictated by parents who aren't funding it. The person paying for the experience gets to influence the decision. Parents pushing their kids into debt for their own social validation are acting selfishly.
A company's monopoly power can be measured not just by its pricing power, but by the 'noneconomic costs' it imposes on society. Dominant platforms can ignore negative externalities, like their product's impact on teen mental health, because their market position insulates them from accountability and user churn.
In a competitive M&A process where the target is reluctant, a marginal price increase may not work. A winning strategy can be to 'overpay' significantly. This makes the offer financially indefensible for the board to reject and immediately ends the bidding process, guaranteeing the acquisition.
Elite universities with massive endowments and shrinking acceptance rates are betraying their public service mission. By failing to expand enrollment, they function more like exclusive 'hedge funds offering classes' that manufacture scarcity to protect their brand prestige, rather than educational institutions aiming to maximize societal impact.
Widespread cancellation of medical debt, while well-intentioned, may remove consumer pressure on providers. If patients don't need to shop around or question prices because they anticipate forgiveness, it eliminates a key market force needed to control escalating costs.
To fix the student debt crisis, universities should be financially on the hook for the first portion of any loan default (e.g., $20,000). This "first loss" position would compel them to underwrite the economic viability of their own degrees, creating a powerful market check against pushing students into overpriced and low-value programs.
Palantir is challenging elite academia with its Fall Fellowship, which pays 18-year-olds instead of charging tuition. The program recruits top students who would otherwise attend Harvard or Yale, offering performance reviews instead of grades and real-world national security projects instead of classes, representing a direct corporate alternative to university education.
Recent streaming price increases, which are vastly outpacing inflation, serve as the primary evidence that the market is already too consolidated. Further mergers would grant companies like Netflix unchecked pricing power, transferring wealth from consumers and labor directly to shareholders in an oligopolistic environment.
The frenzy around elite college admissions is a systemic 'collective action trap.' Even parents and students who understand the limited value of prestige are forced to compete due to intense social pressure and status anxiety, amplified by social media. Opting out individually carries too high a social cost.
There is a significant hypocrisy in elite university admissions. While affirmative action for historically disadvantaged groups is highly controversial, these same institutions give equal or larger admissions breaks to athletes in niche, wealthy sports like fencing and rowing, a practice that receives far less public scrutiny.