A Comment on the Pechman-Hansen-Weisbrod Controversy

Inequality of Opportunity for Higher Education

“…Even student-aid mocevs are not primarily concentrated in the community colleges, city colleges, and less prestigious colleges that serve the poor (Rivlin, 1970: 9). Moreover, in their recent analysis of the distribution of subsidy for public higher education in California, Hansen and Weisbrod (1969a;196913) argue that because higher income students ar; more likely to go to college, to attend the most expensive public institutions, and to stay in college longer, their families are in effect receiving a much greater educational subsidy from !he state than are low income families.lR Probably the same trend would be revealed and possibly accentuated in states with less avail- Hansen andWeisbrod's analysis (1969a, 1969c) has drawn critical substantive and methodological comment from Pechman (1970), which in turn has been answered by Hartman (1970). Pechman (1971) has recently made further comments and has been replied to by Hansen and Weisbrod (1971a).…”

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research

“…(Hansen & Weisbrod, 1969a, p. 78) The authors' conclusions were quite controversial, and were debated in academic and policy settings for almost a decade (Carnegie Commission, 1973;Cohn et al, 1970;Hansen & Weisbrod, 1969aHartman, 1970Hartman, , 1976McGuire, 1976;Pechman, 1970;Windham, 1976;Zwerling, 1973). If it was true that the extensive and complex program of higher education subsidies in the country did more to benefit high income than low income students, there was no argument to be made for the support of higher education subsidies as a progressive redistribution program.…”

Higher Education and Income Distribution in a Less Developed Country

“…Evidently, when confronted with a given set of facts, these criteria may yield very different qualitative judgements about the equitability of a fiscal programme. 5 We note that the cost-benefit and the equal opportunity criteria apply horizontally (i.e.…”