Can Harvard change it all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Does the fact that Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. spend 70% more on management fees for their endowments than on total financial aid factor into this debate at all?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/08/universities-pay-investment-managers-scholarships-yale-harvard

Here is a quote from the article:

A New York Times op-ed published Wednesday by Victor Fleischer, a law professor at the University of San Diego, lays out this disparity. Fleischer cited Yale University, which paid its fund managers nearly $743 million in 2014 but gave out just $170 million in scholarships. He also noted that many universities, large and small, public and private, show the same imbalance in spending. "We've lost sight of the idea that students, not fund managers, should be the primary beneficiaries of a university's endowment," he writes. "The private-equity folks get cash; students take out loans."

Fleischer provided Mother Jones with more of his data, which is gleaned from tax forms, financial statements, and annual reports. Here's how the numbers shake out at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton. On average, these four wealthy, elite universities spend 70 percent more on managing their investment portfolios than they do on tuition assistance. (Complete scholarship data for 2014 was not available, and some investment management fees are estimated

If Harvard made tuition free, Stanford would have to follow suit. And then Yale. And then Princeton. I think that would put pressure all down the line to increase financial assistance.

Thanks for posting, PP. This proves these institutions are not non-profit at all, should more proof be needed.

I hope Harvard goes to free tuition. I doubt it will happen, but I can dream.

[Anonymous]

Personally I don't think it's necessary. Harvard is already free for low income families, and quite affordable for middle income families.

[Anonymous]

I am a Harvard alum and 15 year interviewer, so I've talked to the Admissions Office pretty regularly over the years.

If my class is any indication, this Free Harvard slate will be voted down resoundingly. Ron Unz , the ringleader, gives money to white supremacists, and has tried to get bilingual programs ( the kind that DCUM loves) banned in several states.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/16/leader-bid-shake-harvard-board-linked-white-supremacist-writers/3YGidncAQoAINn64eXbevI/story.html

Even if that weren't true, Harvard will never abandon holistic admissions. I myself sometimes wish that there were less of a tip for legacies and fewer athletes, but Harvard isn't interested in someone else's idea of "merit". With 17 applicants for each spot, they can't accommodate everyone with high scores anyway. Three fives on APs as a junior, an unweighted 3.8 with at least 6 APs, and all parts of the SAT over 750, only gets you to the top 30-40% of the applicant pool. They only have freshman beds for 5%.

Grades and test scores are poorly correlated with success in college, and Harvard is looking for people who will be successful in life. That's why the rigor of the hs courseload (which is more predictive of college success) and extracurriculars are so important. They want kids who are already getting things done, whether it's research or community service.

If you object to the admissions criteria, I'm not sure why you'd want your kid to go there. No matter where you go to school, your peers make the experience. If you want different peers for your kid, there are 3K universities in this country, and almost all of the universities abroad use test scores as the major admission criterion. If Harvard just used test scores for admission, it would be a different place, and probably wouldn't be able to attract top notch faculty.

[Anonymous]

Following these threads I don't see that anyone is saying test scores and grades are the be all and end all. Rigor, intellectual curiosity and accomplishments are important to assess. My personal experience is those qualities also exist alongside the grades and test score of the "robots" that posters denigrate.
I thnk what people are saying is that they are perceiving gaps between the ideal of holistic admissions and the reality. That worries some including the 60% of legacy kids left out. Our DCs weren't attracted to Harvard but I can understand why the perceived disconnects are disconcerting to those who are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a Harvard alum and 15 year interviewer, so I've talked to the Admissions Office pretty regularly over the years.

If my class is any indication, this Free Harvard slate will be voted down resoundingly. Ron Unz , the ringleader, gives money to white supremacists, and has tried to get bilingual programs ( the kind that DCUM loves) banned in several states.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/16/leader-bid-shake-harvard-board-linked-white-supremacist-writers/3YGidncAQoAINn64eXbevI/story.html

Even if that weren't true, Harvard will never abandon holistic admissions. I myself sometimes wish that there were less of a tip for legacies and fewer athletes, but Harvard isn't interested in someone else's idea of "merit". With 17 applicants for each spot, they can't accommodate everyone with high scores anyway. Three fives on APs as a junior, an unweighted 3.8 with at least 6 APs, and all parts of the SAT over 750, only gets you to the top 30-40% of the applicant pool. They only have freshman beds for 5%.

Grades and test scores are poorly correlated with success in college, and Harvard is looking for people who will be successful in life. That's why the rigor of the hs courseload (which is more predictive of college success) and extracurriculars are so important. They want kids who are already getting things done, whether it's research or community service.

If you object to the admissions criteria, I'm not sure why you'd want your kid to go there. No matter where you go to school, your peers make the experience. If you want different peers for your kid, there are 3K universities in this country, and almost all of the universities abroad use test scores as the major admission criterion. If Harvard just used test scores for admission, it would be a different place, and probably wouldn't be able to attract top notch faculty.

I think that the above is true for most schools. That is why holistic admissions exists. The same is true in the job market.

[Anonymous]

Al the top schools are holistic. What's different is how they are perceived to apply the criteria they communicate.

[Anonymous]

It is different from the job market in that employers care about their bottom line. There aren't great measurements for a college's performance other than graduation rate, initial employment rates or the numbers who get top awards. Top colleges like Harvard certainly open many doors which is why the brand is so appealing. The reality is they can maintain that reputation no matter what mix of kids they admit. So even if it's not ALL the best and brightest, there's no downside to them as there's really no feedback loop on whether the majority of their students were actually prepared and are succeeding in the opportunities they are provided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Does the fact that Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. spend 70% more on management fees for their endowments than on total financial aid factor into this debate at all?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/08/universities-pay-investment-managers-scholarships-yale-harvard

Here is a quote from the article:

A New York Times op-ed published Wednesday by Victor Fleischer, a law professor at the University of San Diego, lays out this disparity. Fleischer cited Yale University, which paid its fund managers nearly $743 million in 2014 but gave out just $170 million in scholarships. He also noted that many universities, large and small, public and private, show the same imbalance in spending. "We've lost sight of the idea that students, not fund managers, should be the primary beneficiaries of a university's endowment," he writes. "The private-equity folks get cash; students take out loans."

Fleischer provided Mother Jones with more of his data, which is gleaned from tax forms, financial statements, and annual reports. Here's how the numbers shake out at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton. On average, these four wealthy, elite universities spend 70 percent more on managing their investment portfolios than they do on tuition assistance. (Complete scholarship data for 2014 was not available, and some investment management fees are estimated

If Harvard made tuition free, Stanford would have to follow suit. And then Yale. And then Princeton. I think that would put pressure all down the line to increase financial assistance.

Thanks for posting, PP. This proves these institutions are not non-profit at all, should more proof be needed.

I hope Harvard goes to free tuition. I doubt it will happen, but I can dream.

Actually, it doesn't show that at all. Also, these are universities, which also provide all sorts to finances to their graduate students, faculty, researchers and others that is not categorized as financial aid. So, the numbers are misleading. Universities also have multiple functions, of school undergraduate education is only one. There's also research, writing support, and graduate student education, to name a few. So when you look at undergraduate financial aid I. The context of the university you will find a smaller percentage than what you would expect to see at a college or of course at a private high school (which may be what we're accustomed to looking at).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Does the fact that Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. spend 70% more on management fees for their endowments than on total financial aid factor into this debate at all?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/08/universities-pay-investment-managers-scholarships-yale-harvard

Here is a quote from the article:

A New York Times op-ed published Wednesday by Victor Fleischer, a law professor at the University of San Diego, lays out this disparity. Fleischer cited Yale University, which paid its fund managers nearly $743 million in 2014 but gave out just $170 million in scholarships. He also noted that many universities, large and small, public and private, show the same imbalance in spending. "We've lost sight of the idea that students, not fund managers, should be the primary beneficiaries of a university's endowment," he writes. "The private-equity folks get cash; students take out loans."

Fleischer provided Mother Jones with more of his data, which is gleaned from tax forms, financial statements, and annual reports. Here's how the numbers shake out at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton. On average, these four wealthy, elite universities spend 70 percent more on managing their investment portfolios than they do on tuition assistance. (Complete scholarship data for 2014 was not available, and some investment management fees are estimated

If Harvard made tuition free, Stanford would have to follow suit. And then Yale. And then Princeton. I think that would put pressure all down the line to increase financial assistance.

Thanks for posting, PP. This proves these institutions are not non-profit at all, should more proof be needed.

I hope Harvard goes to free tuition. I doubt it will happen, but I can dream.

Actually, it doesn't show that at all. Also, these are universities, which also provide all sorts to finances to their graduate students, faculty, researchers and others that is not categorized as financial aid. So, the numbers are misleading. Universities also have multiple functions, of school undergraduate education is only one. There's also research, writing support, and graduate student education, to name a few. So when you look at undergraduate financial aid I. The context of the university you will find a smaller percentage than what you would expect to see at a college or of course at a private high school (which may be what we're accustomed to looking at).

Adding to my post, Harvard web site states that it has about 6,700 undergrads and 14,500 graduate and professional school students.