It's not significantly more people. The US has 5000 universities and colleges, and perhaps a dozen really elite schools, depending on where you draw the line. Those schools have more money. No one else does.
And only some of that money comes from donations. Much of it are your taxpayer dollars at work. The direct way is to donate money. The indirect way is to swing government funds.
Ok, well it is more people than the amount of spots that they take up.
> Those schools have more money. No one else does.
Ok, so if an elite person takes up one spot, but the extra money allows 2 more spots to open up, then that is a net increase in total number of slots. So that is still a benefit to the extra people who can go to that college.
But maybe if education was actually about pursuit of knowledge rather than simply networking to maximize your capitalist potential, we would end up with a more educated populace.
Subsidizing college education ultimately opens up a spot in higher education for everyone.
It's short-sighted to view the wealthy people manipulating our institutions with their money as our providers. They literally paid for the opportunity for people to view them that way.
The rest would have significantly less spots in college, if this funding method was gotten rid of. So less people would be educated.
If rich people going to an elite college results in significantly more spots at that college being funded, then that is a benefit.