Can Harvard change it all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I don't believe most other schools will follow because they don't have the endowment to afford it so it will only put the other schools in more dire straights as they try to keep up and can't.

They don't need to try to keep up. Is Harvard intending to quadruple the size of its freshmen class? Harvard being free changes almost nothing for other colleges. It already has only a handful of competitors--all of whom offer great financial aid to lower and middle income students. It is not lack of tuition assistance that keeps middle America out of Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I don't believe most other schools will follow because they don't have the endowment to afford it so it will only put the other schools in more dire straights as they try to keep up and can't.

They don't need to try to keep up. Is Harvard intending to quadruple the size of its freshmen class? Harvard being free changes almost nothing for other colleges. It already has only a handful of competitors--all of whom offer great financial aid to lower and middle income students. It is not lack of tuition assistance that keeps middle America out of Harvard.

..or out of any elite college.

[Anonymous]

There are several different issues at play.

Yes, Harvard could afford this. But, Harvard already essentially provides college for free if family income is less than a certain amount ($50,000?), and provides strong financial aid and well paying work study programs well beyond that. Absent extenuating circumstances, I don't know of many situations in which kids could not attend Harvard and leave with a reasonable debt load. I worked through my time at Harvard as did many, many of my friends, with a very wide range of family financial situations. I'm not sure I see the need for Harvard to provide non-need-based full scholarships to everyone. Also, the school has many missions, of which financial aid is an important one but far from alone. Donors to Harvard donate for financial aid purposes, but also to support programs, faculty, staff, research, capital improvements and maintenance, technology, etc. Before deciding essentially to gift undergrads who don't need it with free college tuition, I'd want to be certain the school is balancing all of its priorities. To be honest, if the school starts providing free college to kids with the financial resources that our family now has, I would be very disappointed and view it as squandering the resources donated. Tailored increases in fan uncial aid to kids who need it, though, I would applaud.

[Anonymous]

No they will not do this. It's about connections and access to the .o1%. Next you will want a lottery for all qualified candidates. LOL that's not the way the world works.

[Anonymous]

No one stays on top without giving thought to how they can best change for the better. They do a good job on the financial end. It is on points 2 and 3 that they can lead the way to a merit based system that still takes into account ECs in addition to academic record yet eliminate the buckets of legacy, URM, sports and connections. Under the current structure of admissions, the institution who is supposedly the best in the world is sending a message to kids that their academic efforts don't really matter. It's more important that you are born to the right family, who you know or that you're a fast runner. We have work places and pro sport teams for that. Alumni kids should not be afraid of the competition they are well equipped for through nature and nurture. People talk about having access to the 1%. Why...are kids only capable of succeeding through other people whose parents did the heavy lifting? I know too idealistic here but I think college should be idealistic because they are dealing with formative years and leave the professional aspects to graduate schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There is an effort afoot to elect to Harvard's Board of Overseers a slate that believes in (1) free tuition for all Harvard undergrads (because the endowment is large enough to afford it); (2) greater transparency in admissions (so that special perks don't go to alumni kids); and (3) strict enforcement of the principle of nondiscrimination so that there is not necessarily a cap for diversity reasons on Asian applicants.

If Harvard does it, others will follow. The same could apply to private high schools.

The obvious downside is that some who can easily afford to pay are given a free ride. That upside is that it creates competition to compete for the best.

Thoughts? Could this be the beginning of the end for high tuition costs at the top colleges and private high schools?

Way to piss off the alumni (who, being Harvard grads, tend to donate a lot).
And let's not forget the large foreign donors buying admission for their offspring.

Even the endowment as big as Harvard's will suffer a hit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one stays on top without giving thought to how they can best change for the better. They do a good job on the financial end. It is on points 2 and 3 that they can lead the way to a merit based system that still takes into account ECs in addition to academic record yet eliminate the buckets of legacy, URM, sports and connections. Under the current structure of admissions, the institution who is supposedly the best in the world is sending a message to kids that their academic efforts don't really matter. It's more important that you are born to the right family, who you know or that you're a fast runner. We have work places and pro sport teams for that. Alumni kids should not be afraid of the competition they are well equipped for through nature and nurture. People talk about having access to the 1%. Why...are kids only capable of succeeding through other people whose parents did the heavy lifting? I know too idealistic here but I think college should be idealistic because they are dealing with formative years and leave the professional aspects to graduate schools.

Again, you seem to think that it's a problem that Harvard takes into account legacy, URM, sports, and connections. But Harvard doesn't see that as a problem. In fact, no college or university does. Colleges and universities want competitive athletic teams. (Speaking of which, why are you okay with other ECs being taken into account, but not athletics?) Harvard also doesn't see it as a problem that they give preferential treatment to URMs. In fact, few colleges or universities see that as a problem; many see it as an absolute mission. And many Americans agree that they should.

I don't know anyone, anywhere who thinks that Harvard is sending a message to kids that their academic efforts don't really matter. What rock are you living under?

Harvard has managed to stay on top for almost 400 years. I think they may know better than you do how to position themselves to stay there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one stays on top without giving thought to how they can best change for the better. They do a good job on the financial end. It is on points 2 and 3 that they can lead the way to a merit based system that still takes into account ECs in addition to academic record yet eliminate the buckets of legacy, URM, sports and connections. Under the current structure of admissions, the institution who is supposedly the best in the world is sending a message to kids that their academic efforts don't really matter. It's more important that you are born to the right family, who you know or that you're a fast runner. We have work places and pro sport teams for that. Alumni kids should not be afraid of the competition they are well equipped for through nature and nurture. People talk about having access to the 1%. Why...are kids only capable of succeeding through other people whose parents did the heavy lifting? I know too idealistic here but I think college should be idealistic because they are dealing with formative years and leave the professional aspects to graduate schools.

Exactly what do you think is the problem here? Are you under the impression that America's best and brightest high school seniors have trouble getting into and attending college?

[Anonymous]

I don't have a problem. I think it's great that a board at an institution who has been successful for 400 years is asking the questions. As to sports, I have an athlete and love college sports. But I don't understand why it is okay for an athlete to meet a lower bar for admissions at any school. I don't believe that same degree of consideration is afforded other ECs as athletics is the main driver for likely letters.. I am also a strong believer in diversity but I think that comes more from income levels and background culture than from the color of one's skin. You certainly don't have to agree. I believe this board was to just air opinions. Yours is just different than mine and certainly I doubt Harvard is going to listen to either of us. But they are in a very powerful position to enact change. It's too bad they couldn't make eliminating early admission happen years ago. Some really smart people were right that it is a disservice to our kids but no one wanted to listen. And no I don't think that the best and brightest are having trouble getting into and attending college because fortunately there's a lot of them. The question was whether Harvard's process is working for them and what downward impact would it have on other institutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one stays on top without giving thought to how they can best change for the better. They do a good job on the financial end. It is on points 2 and 3 that they can lead the way to a merit based system that still takes into account ECs in addition to academic record yet eliminate the buckets of legacy, URM, sports and connections. Under the current structure of admissions, the institution who is supposedly the best in the world is sending a message to kids that their academic efforts don't really matter. It's more important that you are born to the right family, who you know or that you're a fast runner. We have work places and pro sport teams for that. Alumni kids should not be afraid of the competition they are well equipped for through nature and nurture. People talk about having access to the 1%. Why...are kids only capable of succeeding through other people whose parents did the heavy lifting? I know too idealistic here but I think college should be idealistic because they are dealing with formative years and leave the professional aspects to graduate schools.

No, get a "B" in 9th grade and you are not getting. Get all "A" and very high or prefect SAT and ACT, you are most likely not getting in Harvard. There is just a lot on competition for a limited number of spots. Now the rich and powerful do get in because they have influence. If American was sinking into the ocean and there was one ship leaving, who do you think would get on the ship? The rich and powerful because they are rich and powerfully. So they made do a little around the edges but no big changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem. I think it's great that a board at an institution who has been successful for 400 years is asking the questions.

You still haven't provided a link proving that it is asking questions.

[Anonymous]

The OP would have to provide that. I too though have heard something along those lines from an alumni.

[Anonymous]

" No, get a "B" in 9th grade and you are not getting. Get all "A" and very high or prefect SAT and ACT, you are most likely not getting in Harvard. There is just a lot on competition for a limited number of spots. Now the rich and powerful do get in because they have influence. If American was sinking into the ocean and there was one ship leaving, who do you think would get on the ship? The rich and powerful because they are rich and powerfully. So they made do a little around the edges but no big changes. "

That's not true about the grades. Not a big fan of the site but take a look at College Confidential. Definitely not all A students. You can see that they had different academic bars depending on bucket. There is a lot of competition but think about how the slots are filled during SCEA with the institutional priorities. There is a much smaller percentage of seats vs # applicants for regular decision. I think what they are questioning is whether the competition should be more open through out the process. Doubtful it'll get anywhere myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem. I think it's great that a board at an institution who has been successful for 400 years is asking the questions.

You still haven't provided a link proving that it is asking questions.

+1. This is my question as well. I'd be shocked if anyone on Harvard's board is agitating for these "improvements."

[Anonymous]

It's extremely doubtful that there would be a link to any board level discussions.