I once encountered an endowment fund that was restricted for use in a defined scholarship. This was problematic because that scholarship could only be given to students of a specific race. Restricting applicants in this way would be illegal under Canada's charter, so for at least a decade the funds were simply not spent. As far as I know nothing has changed.
The common argument is that universities offer vastly more services to their students then in the past. Career centers, for example, are relatively new trend. This is in part because students also 'shop' for universities with the best perks - not necessarily the best faculty. The most egregious examples include Michelin star chefs, lazy Rivers, and very fancy scoreboards in their very fancy stadiums. Less egregious examples include better campus security and health support staff. As much as it's convenient to point to administrators as a problem, part of the problem is also the ongoing arms race to attract applicants and students' expectations.
A Unitarian system might be better, faculty run classes maybe without even TAs, your grade is however you do on your final, Spartan campuses without student amenities. The kids would be more depended on themselves to sink or flourish, but it’s almost like that anyways.
But if I had to choose for my own kid and had the money to afford it, I would still go with the full campus experience, although a Unitarian experience would probably be better for access overall.
The unitarian model you mentioned is the norm in Germany and France (and even the UK to a certain extent - a CSU will have better student amenities than Oxbridge tbh).
Despite other comments that are somewhat aghast at the idea of dictating a margin of error, the threshold at which you consider something significant IS arbitrary. The 'p' value of 0.05, the inverse of the '95%'confidence interval, is commonly chosen by researchers but is by no means the only choice you could make. Some research uses less stringent or more stringent thresholds, depending on the nature of the research and the assumptions of the researchers.
Adding another cookbook to this excellent list: Wok by Kenji Alt-Lopez gives a fantastic, technique - based introduction to Chinese and Korean cooking, and includes very readable chapters detailing how to get good outcomes from his recipes. It's seriously levelled up my cooking skills.
The claim of the headline is also not supported by the evidence shared in the article. As just one example, the article notes that many different strains of bacteria are responsible for caries. This fact doesn't necessarily say anything about the effectiveness of Lantern's treatments - although it might shed light on the mechanisms that make it effe tive (or not).
That's what the clinical trials and studies on the early adopters are for. There's lots of interesting commentary on the early research, such as Scott Alexander's write-up, that are much better than this article.
Human capital contracts are another partial solution that flips the incentives: instead of using loans to pay tuition up front, institutions are paid a % of your income for a fixed period of time, after which any remaining amount is forgiven. Typically this only applies to income over a base amount (such as 10% of income above a 40,000 base). Naturally this works great in fields with strong employment outcomes and terribly everywhere else.
The return window should be time limited so that the uni shoulders some of the risk - that their degree has market value. Masters programs can be particularly egregious, they are profit centers where only a small fraction of those getting the degree advance to a PhD program or some position where the degree matters. If the time is limited and one only need to pay a % over a threshold pay, the uni has some skin in the game and can lose on the gamble. In this market design they may be more careful about the promises they make and better guide our population towards programs that have better market value (and less personal debt).
F = g(m2*m2)/d^2. Earth surface gravity using Earth's radius as d; iss using that radius plus orbital height of 408km. Earth's surface gravity = 9.81m/s2, ISS gravity = 8.66m/s2.
So the answer is, if you could hold the ISS stationary without falling, people in it would feel almost as much gravity. You would have to go much higher than the ISS to feel weightless without orbiting/falling.
Assuming people feel weightless at 1m/s2 or less, you can solve for that! And the answer is 13,600 km.
