Class of '26 Instagram College Decisions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean logically speaking "universities want more kids from rich private schools because they need the money" makes a whole lot more sense than "every single private school's class of 2026 happens to be vastly more impressive than their class of 2025 or 2024."

Eh, the TTs seem very similar to prior years.

Which ones are doing better this year? Ours is about the same as prior years.

Brearley posted 3 to Harvard last year vs the remarkable 7 this year. Does it mean anything? I have no idea.
HM send 3 to MIT last year, but none this year, and I think fewer to Harvard this year as well.

With numbers this small it's probably mostly noise.

Brearley has consistently sent 40 plus percent of its class to Ivies in the past, and this year does not seem any different. I am not asking whether Brearley’s distribution changed. I am asking which schools are doing better this year in terms of sending a higher percentage of students to Ivy + schools.

I don't think Brearley's numbers could get much better. This year I see one not good school (relatively speaking) - a couple of LAC which aren't very highly rated but still extremely good schools and the rest are what most would consider top 30 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost all these endowments were in early rounds at SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI etc. They're about to reap huge gains. (WashU has already announced). They do using federal cuts as cover to cut things they've wanted to cut, and add some public facing cuts (no more food to-go containers at Yale!), but they're richer than ever. And all WASPS were unaffected as they had under 3000 students. Richest schools like Princeton that had under 3000 "tuition-paying" students also unaffected.

These top college would like to keep tuition-paying enrollment under 3k. Which means increasing aid to full-tuition packages to more not less

They're going to get their research grants back somewhere from 1-3 years from now too, they still have to cover payroll in the meantime. Harvard took out a dang bridge loan, I don't think they're tapping into their credit rating and paying out interest for funsies.

And again, most of the endowment money can't be used to cover operating expenses - if your endowment grows by 30%, that's great for the stuff you're allowed to spend your endowment on, but you can't simply cash out a billion dollars and use it to pay for whatever.

Universities routinely issue debt for projects and operations. They have been doing it for decades. Harvard issued bonds earlier this year. Their cost of capital was under 3% as the rating agencies (which know much more about this than you) continue to rate them AAA and investors (who also know more about this than you) have strong faith in Harvard. And they are usually able to issue tax-exempt debt so the interest rates they pay are lower than corporate debt. Doesn't it make sense to borrow at these low rates rather than tap into your endowment which will likely be returning a much higher interest rate? It is basic math.

I can't stand people who ignorantly think that universities/hospitals/municipalities issuing debt is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of using their brains. Leverage is great when used wisely. If a university starts going overboard with the leverage, the rating agencies call them out on it. That is far from the case here, and with most other schools issuing debt.

I didn't say it was a sign of weakness. I think it's reasonable to say that they're under more financial strain than normal - the grant cuts have been very widely reported - and that they might want to take some modest measures like letting in an extra 50 rich kids (who happen to be predominately white yes I said it look at the demographics for most of these schools) to help close the gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only these schools changed adding MIT: Spence +1, Dalton +1, Regis +2, Hunter +2, Fieldston +1.

Also added Hunter, Browning, and Dwight-Englewood

School (N): Ivy+WASP; H/Y/P/S/M; Ivy+

Brearley (46): 36 (78%); 14 (30%); 32 (70%)
Spence (64): 41 (64%); 12 (19%); 38 (59%)
Chapin (52): 32 (62%); 6 (12%); 28 (54%)
Dalton (59): 33 (56%); 13 (22%); 32 (54%)
Saint Ann's (73): 36 (49%); 7 (10%); 27 (37%)
Horace Mann (131): 64 (49%); 6 (5%); 63 (48%)
Trinity (109): 52 (48%); 13 (12%); 49 (45%)
Regis (79): 35 (44%); 6 (8%); 29 (37%)
Nightingale (57): 24 (42%); 1 (2%); 22 (39%)
Riverdale (128): 53 (41%); 11 (9%); 48 (38%)
Hunter (114): 46 (40%); 12 (11%); 42 (37%)
Browning (27): 10 (37%); 2 (7%); 10 (37%)
Packer (92): 28 (30%); 3 (3%); 23 (25%)
Fieldston (141): 42 (30%); 12 (9%); 40 (28%)
Friends Seminary (39): 11 (28%); 2 (5%); 10 (26%)
CGPS (119): 32 (27%); 3 (3%); 28 (24%)
Dwight-Englewood (124): 31 (25%); 8 (6%); 28 (23%)
Avenues (91): 21 (23%); 4 (4%); 20 (22%)
Trevor (87): 16 (18%); 1 (1%); 16 (18%)
Berkeley Carroll (77): 14 (18%); 0 (0%); 9 (12%)
Poly Prep (123): 22 (18%); 2 (2%); 22 (18%)
Grace Church (80): 14 (18%); 1 (1%); 13 (16%)
Sacred Heart (61): 10 (16%); 2 (3%); 10 (16%)
Marymount (70): 8 (11%); 1 (1%); 7 (10%)
Brooklyn Friends (48): 5 (10%); 0 (0%); 3 (6%)

H/Y/P/S/M = Harvard + Yale + Princeton + Stanford + MIT
Ivy+ = Ivy League + Stanford + MIT + Caltech + UChicago + Duke + Johns Hopkins + Northwestern + Vanderbilt
Ivy+WASP = Ivy+ + Williams + Amherst + Swarthmore + Pomona

Actual data from schools' websites. 5 year averages where available, otherwise, latest year(s) available averaged.

School N/yr Ivy+WASP H/Y/P/S/M Ivy+ Years (Averaged)
Brearley 61 60% 19% 53% 2021-2025
Spence 64 54% 17% 50% 2021-2025
Dalton 87 52% 16% 48% 2019-2024
Riverdale 116 46% 11% 43% 2020-2025
Saint Ann's 86 45% 13% 35% 2024-2025
Chapin 60 43% 11% 38% 2021-2025
Nightingale 57 33% 6% 28% 2021-2025
Fieldston 120 28% 3% 24% 2020-2025
Browning 25 25% 3% 23% 2021-2025
Regis 130 25% 6% 22% 2022-2025
Friends Seminary 74 24% 5% 21% 2021-2025
Packer 96 19% 5% 16% 2021-2025
Avenues 91 19% 3% 17% 2023
Dwight-Englewood 124 17% 3% 16% 2023-2025
Sacred Heart 56 16% 3% 15% 2021-2025
Poly Prep 128 15% 2% 12% 2021-2025
Marymount 50 14% 3% 13% 2020-2024

Horace Mann 180 42% 6% 42% 2023-2025 *** lower bound; missing Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Amherst, Williams; <5 students

BCS, BFS, CGPS, GCS, Hunter, Trevor, Trinity don't report #s, just schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean logically speaking "universities want more kids from rich private schools because they need the money" makes a whole lot more sense than "every single private school's class of 2026 happens to be vastly more impressive than their class of 2025 or 2024."

Eh, the TTs seem very similar to prior years.

Which ones are doing better this year? Ours is about the same as prior years.

Brearley posted 3 to Harvard last year vs the remarkable 7 this year. Does it mean anything? I have no idea.
HM send 3 to MIT last year, but none this year, and I think fewer to Harvard this year as well.

With numbers this small it's probably mostly noise.

Brearley has consistently sent 40 plus percent of its class to Ivies in the past, and this year does not seem any different. I am not asking whether Brearley’s distribution changed. I am asking which schools are doing better this year in terms of sending a higher percentage of students to Ivy + schools.

Mostly T2/T3 schools are doing better. I think if you put a number on it, about 10% higher percentage wise? Ours had a good year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only these schools changed adding MIT: Spence +1, Dalton +1, Regis +2, Hunter +2, Fieldston +1.

Also added Hunter, Browning, and Dwight-Englewood

School (N): Ivy+WASP; H/Y/P/S/M; Ivy+

Brearley (46): 36 (78%); 14 (30%); 32 (70%)
Spence (64): 41 (64%); 12 (19%); 38 (59%)
Chapin (52): 32 (62%); 6 (12%); 28 (54%)
Dalton (59): 33 (56%); 13 (22%); 32 (54%)
Saint Ann's (73): 36 (49%); 7 (10%); 27 (37%)
Horace Mann (131): 64 (49%); 6 (5%); 63 (48%)
Trinity (109): 52 (48%); 13 (12%); 49 (45%)
Regis (79): 35 (44%); 6 (8%); 29 (37%)
Nightingale (57): 24 (42%); 1 (2%); 22 (39%)
Riverdale (128): 53 (41%); 11 (9%); 48 (38%)
Hunter (114): 46 (40%); 12 (11%); 42 (37%)
Browning (27): 10 (37%); 2 (7%); 10 (37%)
Packer (92): 28 (30%); 3 (3%); 23 (25%)
Fieldston (141): 42 (30%); 12 (9%); 40 (28%)
Friends Seminary (39): 11 (28%); 2 (5%); 10 (26%)
CGPS (119): 32 (27%); 3 (3%); 28 (24%)
Dwight-Englewood (124): 31 (25%); 8 (6%); 28 (23%)
Avenues (91): 21 (23%); 4 (4%); 20 (22%)
Trevor (87): 16 (18%); 1 (1%); 16 (18%)
Berkeley Carroll (77): 14 (18%); 0 (0%); 9 (12%)
Poly Prep (123): 22 (18%); 2 (2%); 22 (18%)
Grace Church (80): 14 (18%); 1 (1%); 13 (16%)
Sacred Heart (61): 10 (16%); 2 (3%); 10 (16%)
Marymount (70): 8 (11%); 1 (1%); 7 (10%)
Brooklyn Friends (48): 5 (10%); 0 (0%); 3 (6%)

H/Y/P/S/M = Harvard + Yale + Princeton + Stanford + MIT
Ivy+ = Ivy League + Stanford + MIT + Caltech + UChicago + Duke + Johns Hopkins + Northwestern + Vanderbilt
Ivy+WASP = Ivy+ + Williams + Amherst + Swarthmore + Pomona

Actual data from schools' websites. 5 year averages where available, otherwise, latest year(s) available averaged.

School N/yr Ivy+WASP H/Y/P/S/M Ivy+ Years (Averaged)
Brearley 61 60% 19% 53% 2021-2025
Spence 64 54% 17% 50% 2021-2025
Dalton 87 52% 16% 48% 2019-2024
Riverdale 116 46% 11% 43% 2020-2025
Saint Ann's 86 45% 13% 35% 2024-2025
Chapin 60 43% 11% 38% 2021-2025
Nightingale 57 33% 6% 28% 2021-2025
Fieldston 120 28% 3% 24% 2020-2025
Browning 25 25% 3% 23% 2021-2025
Regis 130 25% 6% 22% 2022-2025
Friends Seminary 74 24% 5% 21% 2021-2025
Packer 96 19% 5% 16% 2021-2025
Avenues 91 19% 3% 17% 2023
Dwight-Englewood 124 17% 3% 16% 2023-2025
Sacred Heart 56 16% 3% 15% 2021-2025
Poly Prep 128 15% 2% 12% 2021-2025
Marymount 50 14% 3% 13% 2020-2024

Horace Mann 180 42% 6% 42% 2023-2025 *** lower bound; missing Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Amherst, Williams; <5 students

BCS, BFS, CGPS, GCS, Hunter, Trevor, Trinity don't report #s, just schools.

Woow this is much more meaningful data! Thanks for putting this together

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost all these endowments were in early rounds at SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI etc. They're about to reap huge gains. (WashU has already announced). They do using federal cuts as cover to cut things they've wanted to cut, and add some public facing cuts (no more food to-go containers at Yale!), but they're richer than ever. And all WASPS were unaffected as they had under 3000 students. Richest schools like Princeton that had under 3000 "tuition-paying" students also unaffected.

These top college would like to keep tuition-paying enrollment under 3k. Which means increasing aid to full-tuition packages to more not less

They're going to get their research grants back somewhere from 1-3 years from now too, they still have to cover payroll in the meantime. Harvard took out a dang bridge loan, I don't think they're tapping into their credit rating and paying out interest for funsies.

And again, most of the endowment money can't be used to cover operating expenses - if your endowment grows by 30%, that's great for the stuff you're allowed to spend your endowment on, but you can't simply cash out a billion dollars and use it to pay for whatever.

Universities routinely issue debt for projects and operations. They have been doing it for decades. Harvard issued bonds earlier this year. Their cost of capital was under 3% as the rating agencies (which know much more about this than you) continue to rate them AAA and investors (who also know more about this than you) have strong faith in Harvard. And they are usually able to issue tax-exempt debt so the interest rates they pay are lower than corporate debt. Doesn't it make sense to borrow at these low rates rather than tap into your endowment which will likely be returning a much higher interest rate? It is basic math.

I can't stand people who ignorantly think that universities/hospitals/municipalities issuing debt is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of using their brains. Leverage is great when used wisely. If a university starts going overboard with the leverage, the rating agencies call them out on it. That is far from the case here, and with most other schools issuing debt.

I didn't say it was a sign of weakness. I think it's reasonable to say that they're under more financial strain than normal - the grant cuts have been very widely reported - and that they might want to take some modest measures like letting in an extra 50 rich kids (who happen to be predominately white yes I said it look at the demographics for most of these schools) to help close the gap.

Actually, there is a good chance the rich kids are Asian. Though again, not sure why race is relevant or needs to be mentioned. But you keep on winning. Clearly not a Harvard grad. Or even Yale. Or Cornell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost all these endowments were in early rounds at SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI etc. They're about to reap huge gains. (WashU has already announced). They do using federal cuts as cover to cut things they've wanted to cut, and add some public facing cuts (no more food to-go containers at Yale!), but they're richer than ever. And all WASPS were unaffected as they had under 3000 students. Richest schools like Princeton that had under 3000 "tuition-paying" students also unaffected.

These top college would like to keep tuition-paying enrollment under 3k. Which means increasing aid to full-tuition packages to more not less

They're going to get their research grants back somewhere from 1-3 years from now too, they still have to cover payroll in the meantime. Harvard took out a dang bridge loan, I don't think they're tapping into their credit rating and paying out interest for funsies.

And again, most of the endowment money can't be used to cover operating expenses - if your endowment grows by 30%, that's great for the stuff you're allowed to spend your endowment on, but you can't simply cash out a billion dollars and use it to pay for whatever.

Universities routinely issue debt for projects and operations. They have been doing it for decades. Harvard issued bonds earlier this year. Their cost of capital was under 3% as the rating agencies (which know much more about this than you) continue to rate them AAA and investors (who also know more about this than you) have strong faith in Harvard. And they are usually able to issue tax-exempt debt so the interest rates they pay are lower than corporate debt. Doesn't it make sense to borrow at these low rates rather than tap into your endowment which will likely be returning a much higher interest rate? It is basic math.

I can't stand people who ignorantly think that universities/hospitals/municipalities issuing debt is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of using their brains. Leverage is great when used wisely. If a university starts going overboard with the leverage, the rating agencies call them out on it. That is far from the case here, and with most other schools issuing debt.

I didn't say it was a sign of weakness. I think it's reasonable to say that they're under more financial strain than normal - the grant cuts have been very widely reported - and that they might want to take some modest measures like letting in an extra 50 rich kids (who happen to be predominately white yes I said it look at the demographics for most of these schools) to help close the gap.

Actually, there is a good chance the rich kids are Asian. Though again, not sure why race is relevant or needs to be mentioned. But you keep on winning. Clearly not a Harvard grad. Or even Yale. Or Cornell.

I cannot tell you how delightful I find it that "private school matriculations are doing well because colleges are letting in more rich kids for financial reasons" is upsetting you in this way. (I did in fact go to Harvard though since this is anonymous forum I have no way to prove it, which is also where I formed my cynical views of rich private school kids going to Harvard)

[Anonymous]

My working theory is that the parents most obsessed with these kinds of stats are the parents who did not go to a HYP so they still see it as a kind of magical golden ticket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost all these endowments were in early rounds at SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI etc. They're about to reap huge gains. (WashU has already announced). They do using federal cuts as cover to cut things they've wanted to cut, and add some public facing cuts (no more food to-go containers at Yale!), but they're richer than ever. And all WASPS were unaffected as they had under 3000 students. Richest schools like Princeton that had under 3000 "tuition-paying" students also unaffected.

These top college would like to keep tuition-paying enrollment under 3k. Which means increasing aid to full-tuition packages to more not less

They're going to get their research grants back somewhere from 1-3 years from now too, they still have to cover payroll in the meantime. Harvard took out a dang bridge loan, I don't think they're tapping into their credit rating and paying out interest for funsies.

And again, most of the endowment money can't be used to cover operating expenses - if your endowment grows by 30%, that's great for the stuff you're allowed to spend your endowment on, but you can't simply cash out a billion dollars and use it to pay for whatever.

Universities routinely issue debt for projects and operations. They have been doing it for decades. Harvard issued bonds earlier this year. Their cost of capital was under 3% as the rating agencies (which know much more about this than you) continue to rate them AAA and investors (who also know more about this than you) have strong faith in Harvard. And they are usually able to issue tax-exempt debt so the interest rates they pay are lower than corporate debt. Doesn't it make sense to borrow at these low rates rather than tap into your endowment which will likely be returning a much higher interest rate? It is basic math.

I can't stand people who ignorantly think that universities/hospitals/municipalities issuing debt is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of using their brains. Leverage is great when used wisely. If a university starts going overboard with the leverage, the rating agencies call them out on it. That is far from the case here, and with most other schools issuing debt.

I didn't say it was a sign of weakness. I think it's reasonable to say that they're under more financial strain than normal - the grant cuts have been very widely reported - and that they might want to take some modest measures like letting in an extra 50 rich kids (who happen to be predominately white yes I said it look at the demographics for most of these schools) to help close the gap.

Actually, there is a good chance the rich kids are Asian. Though again, not sure why race is relevant or needs to be mentioned. But you keep on winning. Clearly not a Harvard grad. Or even Yale. Or Cornell.

I cannot tell you how delightful I find it that "private school matriculations are doing well because colleges are letting in more rich kids for financial reasons" is upsetting you in this way. (I did in fact go to Harvard though since this is anonymous forum I have no way to prove it, which is also where I formed my cynical views of rich private school kids going to Harvard)

For a Harvard alum you completely lack reading comprehension as well as EQ skills. And lack understanding of basic statistics. Or for a citizen of the world for that matter. Jeez. Sorry you have kept such a chip on your shoulder about people with wealth. Not a fun way to go through life. Your four years at Harvard (or however long you were there) must have been miserable.

When I interact with people I try not to focus on race, gender, wealth, etc. But if someone proves themselves repeatedly not to be that sharp I do notice that...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My working theory is that the parents most obsessed with these kinds of stats are the parents who did not go to a HYP so they still see it as a kind of magical golden ticket.

Oh good lord yes, most of the friends who didn't go into finance ended up with perfectly meh careers and even a number of the rich connected types are still bumbling along in their forties in middle management or as assistant professors or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost all these endowments were in early rounds at SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI etc. They're about to reap huge gains. (WashU has already announced). They do using federal cuts as cover to cut things they've wanted to cut, and add some public facing cuts (no more food to-go containers at Yale!), but they're richer than ever. And all WASPS were unaffected as they had under 3000 students. Richest schools like Princeton that had under 3000 "tuition-paying" students also unaffected.

These top college would like to keep tuition-paying enrollment under 3k. Which means increasing aid to full-tuition packages to more not less

They're going to get their research grants back somewhere from 1-3 years from now too, they still have to cover payroll in the meantime. Harvard took out a dang bridge loan, I don't think they're tapping into their credit rating and paying out interest for funsies.

And again, most of the endowment money can't be used to cover operating expenses - if your endowment grows by 30%, that's great for the stuff you're allowed to spend your endowment on, but you can't simply cash out a billion dollars and use it to pay for whatever.

Universities routinely issue debt for projects and operations. They have been doing it for decades. Harvard issued bonds earlier this year. Their cost of capital was under 3% as the rating agencies (which know much more about this than you) continue to rate them AAA and investors (who also know more about this than you) have strong faith in Harvard. And they are usually able to issue tax-exempt debt so the interest rates they pay are lower than corporate debt. Doesn't it make sense to borrow at these low rates rather than tap into your endowment which will likely be returning a much higher interest rate? It is basic math.

I can't stand people who ignorantly think that universities/hospitals/municipalities issuing debt is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of using their brains. Leverage is great when used wisely. If a university starts going overboard with the leverage, the rating agencies call them out on it. That is far from the case here, and with most other schools issuing debt.

I didn't say it was a sign of weakness. I think it's reasonable to say that they're under more financial strain than normal - the grant cuts have been very widely reported - and that they might want to take some modest measures like letting in an extra 50 rich kids (who happen to be predominately white yes I said it look at the demographics for most of these schools) to help close the gap.

Actually, there is a good chance the rich kids are Asian. Though again, not sure why race is relevant or needs to be mentioned. But you keep on winning. Clearly not a Harvard grad. Or even Yale. Or Cornell.

I cannot tell you how delightful I find it that "private school matriculations are doing well because colleges are letting in more rich kids for financial reasons" is upsetting you in this way. (I did in fact go to Harvard though since this is anonymous forum I have no way to prove it, which is also where I formed my cynical views of rich private school kids going to Harvard)

For a Harvard alum you completely lack reading comprehension as well as EQ skills. And lack understanding of basic statistics. Or for a citizen of the world for that matter. Jeez. Sorry you have kept such a chip on your shoulder about people with wealth. Not a fun way to go through life. Your four years at Harvard (or however long you were there) must have been miserable.

When I interact with people I try not to focus on race, gender, wealth, etc. But if someone proves themselves repeatedly not to be that sharp I do notice that...

Yeah, now you're also demonstrating why I feel the way I do about rich people so kudos for helping to reconfirm me in my life choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost all these endowments were in early rounds at SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI etc. They're about to reap huge gains. (WashU has already announced). They do using federal cuts as cover to cut things they've wanted to cut, and add some public facing cuts (no more food to-go containers at Yale!), but they're richer than ever. And all WASPS were unaffected as they had under 3000 students. Richest schools like Princeton that had under 3000 "tuition-paying" students also unaffected.

These top college would like to keep tuition-paying enrollment under 3k. Which means increasing aid to full-tuition packages to more not less

They're going to get their research grants back somewhere from 1-3 years from now too, they still have to cover payroll in the meantime. Harvard took out a dang bridge loan, I don't think they're tapping into their credit rating and paying out interest for funsies.

And again, most of the endowment money can't be used to cover operating expenses - if your endowment grows by 30%, that's great for the stuff you're allowed to spend your endowment on, but you can't simply cash out a billion dollars and use it to pay for whatever.

Universities routinely issue debt for projects and operations. They have been doing it for decades. Harvard issued bonds earlier this year. Their cost of capital was under 3% as the rating agencies (which know much more about this than you) continue to rate them AAA and investors (who also know more about this than you) have strong faith in Harvard. And they are usually able to issue tax-exempt debt so the interest rates they pay are lower than corporate debt. Doesn't it make sense to borrow at these low rates rather than tap into your endowment which will likely be returning a much higher interest rate? It is basic math.

I can't stand people who ignorantly think that universities/hospitals/municipalities issuing debt is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of using their brains. Leverage is great when used wisely. If a university starts going overboard with the leverage, the rating agencies call them out on it. That is far from the case here, and with most other schools issuing debt.

I didn't say it was a sign of weakness. I think it's reasonable to say that they're under more financial strain than normal - the grant cuts have been very widely reported - and that they might want to take some modest measures like letting in an extra 50 rich kids (who happen to be predominately white yes I said it look at the demographics for most of these schools) to help close the gap.

Actually, there is a good chance the rich kids are Asian. Though again, not sure why race is relevant or needs to be mentioned. But you keep on winning. Clearly not a Harvard grad. Or even Yale. Or Cornell.

I cannot tell you how delightful I find it that "private school matriculations are doing well because colleges are letting in more rich kids for financial reasons" is upsetting you in this way. (I did in fact go to Harvard though since this is anonymous forum I have no way to prove it, which is also where I formed my cynical views of rich private school kids going to Harvard)

For a Harvard alum you completely lack reading comprehension as well as EQ skills. And lack understanding of basic statistics. Or for a citizen of the world for that matter. Jeez. Sorry you have kept such a chip on your shoulder about people with wealth. Not a fun way to go through life. Your four years at Harvard (or however long you were there) must have been miserable.

When I interact with people I try not to focus on race, gender, wealth, etc. But if someone proves themselves repeatedly not to be that sharp I do notice that...

Yeah, now you're also demonstrating why I feel the way I do about rich people so kudos for helping to reconfirm me in my life choices.

I'm not rich. Comfortably UMC. But definitely not rich. Keep on digging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost all these endowments were in early rounds at SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI etc. They're about to reap huge gains. (WashU has already announced). They do using federal cuts as cover to cut things they've wanted to cut, and add some public facing cuts (no more food to-go containers at Yale!), but they're richer than ever. And all WASPS were unaffected as they had under 3000 students. Richest schools like Princeton that had under 3000 "tuition-paying" students also unaffected.

These top college would like to keep tuition-paying enrollment under 3k. Which means increasing aid to full-tuition packages to more not less

They're going to get their research grants back somewhere from 1-3 years from now too, they still have to cover payroll in the meantime. Harvard took out a dang bridge loan, I don't think they're tapping into their credit rating and paying out interest for funsies.

And again, most of the endowment money can't be used to cover operating expenses - if your endowment grows by 30%, that's great for the stuff you're allowed to spend your endowment on, but you can't simply cash out a billion dollars and use it to pay for whatever.

Universities routinely issue debt for projects and operations. They have been doing it for decades. Harvard issued bonds earlier this year. Their cost of capital was under 3% as the rating agencies (which know much more about this than you) continue to rate them AAA and investors (who also know more about this than you) have strong faith in Harvard. And they are usually able to issue tax-exempt debt so the interest rates they pay are lower than corporate debt. Doesn't it make sense to borrow at these low rates rather than tap into your endowment which will likely be returning a much higher interest rate? It is basic math.

I can't stand people who ignorantly think that universities/hospitals/municipalities issuing debt is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of using their brains. Leverage is great when used wisely. If a university starts going overboard with the leverage, the rating agencies call them out on it. That is far from the case here, and with most other schools issuing debt.

I didn't say it was a sign of weakness. I think it's reasonable to say that they're under more financial strain than normal - the grant cuts have been very widely reported - and that they might want to take some modest measures like letting in an extra 50 rich kids (who happen to be predominately white yes I said it look at the demographics for most of these schools) to help close the gap.

Actually, there is a good chance the rich kids are Asian. Though again, not sure why race is relevant or needs to be mentioned. But you keep on winning. Clearly not a Harvard grad. Or even Yale. Or Cornell.

I cannot tell you how delightful I find it that "private school matriculations are doing well because colleges are letting in more rich kids for financial reasons" is upsetting you in this way. (I did in fact go to Harvard though since this is anonymous forum I have no way to prove it, which is also where I formed my cynical views of rich private school kids going to Harvard)

For a Harvard alum you completely lack reading comprehension as well as EQ skills. And lack understanding of basic statistics. Or for a citizen of the world for that matter. Jeez. Sorry you have kept such a chip on your shoulder about people with wealth. Not a fun way to go through life. Your four years at Harvard (or however long you were there) must have been miserable.

When I interact with people I try not to focus on race, gender, wealth, etc. But if someone proves themselves repeatedly not to be that sharp I do notice that...

Yeah, now you're also demonstrating why I feel the way I do about rich people so kudos for helping to reconfirm me in my life choices.

I'm not rich. Comfortably UMC. But definitely not rich. Keep on digging.

So you're a UMC person pushing back against my besmirching of rich people, even more delightful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost all these endowments were in early rounds at SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI etc. They're about to reap huge gains. (WashU has already announced). They do using federal cuts as cover to cut things they've wanted to cut, and add some public facing cuts (no more food to-go containers at Yale!), but they're richer than ever. And all WASPS were unaffected as they had under 3000 students. Richest schools like Princeton that had under 3000 "tuition-paying" students also unaffected.

These top college would like to keep tuition-paying enrollment under 3k. Which means increasing aid to full-tuition packages to more not less

They're going to get their research grants back somewhere from 1-3 years from now too, they still have to cover payroll in the meantime. Harvard took out a dang bridge loan, I don't think they're tapping into their credit rating and paying out interest for funsies.

And again, most of the endowment money can't be used to cover operating expenses - if your endowment grows by 30%, that's great for the stuff you're allowed to spend your endowment on, but you can't simply cash out a billion dollars and use it to pay for whatever.

Universities routinely issue debt for projects and operations. They have been doing it for decades. Harvard issued bonds earlier this year. Their cost of capital was under 3% as the rating agencies (which know much more about this than you) continue to rate them AAA and investors (who also know more about this than you) have strong faith in Harvard. And they are usually able to issue tax-exempt debt so the interest rates they pay are lower than corporate debt. Doesn't it make sense to borrow at these low rates rather than tap into your endowment which will likely be returning a much higher interest rate? It is basic math.

I can't stand people who ignorantly think that universities/hospitals/municipalities issuing debt is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of using their brains. Leverage is great when used wisely. If a university starts going overboard with the leverage, the rating agencies call them out on it. That is far from the case here, and with most other schools issuing debt.

I didn't say it was a sign of weakness. I think it's reasonable to say that they're under more financial strain than normal - the grant cuts have been very widely reported - and that they might want to take some modest measures like letting in an extra 50 rich kids (who happen to be predominately white yes I said it look at the demographics for most of these schools) to help close the gap.

Actually, there is a good chance the rich kids are Asian. Though again, not sure why race is relevant or needs to be mentioned. But you keep on winning. Clearly not a Harvard grad. Or even Yale. Or Cornell.

I cannot tell you how delightful I find it that "private school matriculations are doing well because colleges are letting in more rich kids for financial reasons" is upsetting you in this way. (I did in fact go to Harvard though since this is anonymous forum I have no way to prove it, which is also where I formed my cynical views of rich private school kids going to Harvard)

For a Harvard alum you completely lack reading comprehension as well as EQ skills. And lack understanding of basic statistics. Or for a citizen of the world for that matter. Jeez. Sorry you have kept such a chip on your shoulder about people with wealth. Not a fun way to go through life. Your four years at Harvard (or however long you were there) must have been miserable.

When I interact with people I try not to focus on race, gender, wealth, etc. But if someone proves themselves repeatedly not to be that sharp I do notice that...

Yeah, now you're also demonstrating why I feel the way I do about rich people so kudos for helping to reconfirm me in my life choices.

I'm not rich. Comfortably UMC. But definitely not rich. Keep on digging.

So you're a UMC person pushing back against my besmirching of rich people, even more delightful.

Again - I did not "push back against besmirching of rich people." I pushed back primarily against the fact that you said it was only white rich people. Race has zero to do with this. By the law of averages, yes, if this were to happen (which is subject to debate but is not the point I am debating) then a lot of them would likely be white. But plenty could be other races. And their race should have nothing to do with the logic of this argument. But your need to drop race into this completely blows up your potential point.

Though to what seems to be your point, I do hate people who insist that all "rich people," regardless of race, who get into these schools are "mediocre" (hate that word - usage of it in this context is ironically a sign of "mediocrity"). Yes, there are plenty of less qualified people who get into top schools because of their money - I would never deny that (certified moron and your fellow Harvard alum Jared Kushner says hi). But just because someone is wealthy and got into a top school doesn't make them dumb and doesn't mean they just got in because they are rich. Kind of like just because someone is a minority or FGLI or an athlete or whatever else doesn't mean they wouldn't have gotten in regardless of their preferred quality. That is an incredibly simplistic way of looking at the world. MLK would be rolling over in his grave...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost all these endowments were in early rounds at SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI etc. They're about to reap huge gains. (WashU has already announced). They do using federal cuts as cover to cut things they've wanted to cut, and add some public facing cuts (no more food to-go containers at Yale!), but they're richer than ever. And all WASPS were unaffected as they had under 3000 students. Richest schools like Princeton that had under 3000 "tuition-paying" students also unaffected.

These top college would like to keep tuition-paying enrollment under 3k. Which means increasing aid to full-tuition packages to more not less

They're going to get their research grants back somewhere from 1-3 years from now too, they still have to cover payroll in the meantime. Harvard took out a dang bridge loan, I don't think they're tapping into their credit rating and paying out interest for funsies.

And again, most of the endowment money can't be used to cover operating expenses - if your endowment grows by 30%, that's great for the stuff you're allowed to spend your endowment on, but you can't simply cash out a billion dollars and use it to pay for whatever.

Universities routinely issue debt for projects and operations. They have been doing it for decades. Harvard issued bonds earlier this year. Their cost of capital was under 3% as the rating agencies (which know much more about this than you) continue to rate them AAA and investors (who also know more about this than you) have strong faith in Harvard. And they are usually able to issue tax-exempt debt so the interest rates they pay are lower than corporate debt. Doesn't it make sense to borrow at these low rates rather than tap into your endowment which will likely be returning a much higher interest rate? It is basic math.

I can't stand people who ignorantly think that universities/hospitals/municipalities issuing debt is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of using their brains. Leverage is great when used wisely. If a university starts going overboard with the leverage, the rating agencies call them out on it. That is far from the case here, and with most other schools issuing debt.

I didn't say it was a sign of weakness. I think it's reasonable to say that they're under more financial strain than normal - the grant cuts have been very widely reported - and that they might want to take some modest measures like letting in an extra 50 rich kids (who happen to be predominately white yes I said it look at the demographics for most of these schools) to help close the gap.

Actually, there is a good chance the rich kids are Asian. Though again, not sure why race is relevant or needs to be mentioned. But you keep on winning. Clearly not a Harvard grad. Or even Yale. Or Cornell.

I cannot tell you how delightful I find it that "private school matriculations are doing well because colleges are letting in more rich kids for financial reasons" is upsetting you in this way. (I did in fact go to Harvard though since this is anonymous forum I have no way to prove it, which is also where I formed my cynical views of rich private school kids going to Harvard)

For a Harvard alum you completely lack reading comprehension as well as EQ skills. And lack understanding of basic statistics. Or for a citizen of the world for that matter. Jeez. Sorry you have kept such a chip on your shoulder about people with wealth. Not a fun way to go through life. Your four years at Harvard (or however long you were there) must have been miserable.

When I interact with people I try not to focus on race, gender, wealth, etc. But if someone proves themselves repeatedly not to be that sharp I do notice that...

Yeah, now you're also demonstrating why I feel the way I do about rich people so kudos for helping to reconfirm me in my life choices.

I'm not rich. Comfortably UMC. But definitely not rich. Keep on digging.

So you're a UMC person pushing back against my besmirching of rich people, even more delightful.

Again - I did not "push back against besmirching of rich people." I pushed back primarily against the fact that you said it was only white rich people. Race has zero to do with this. By the law of averages, yes, if this were to happen (which is subject to debate but is not the point I am debating) then a lot of them would likely be white. But plenty could be other races. And their race should have nothing to do with the logic of this argument. But your need to drop race into this completely blows up your potential point.

Though to what seems to be your point, I do hate people who insist that all "rich people," regardless of race, who get into these schools are "mediocre" (hate that word - usage of it in this context is ironically a sign of "mediocrity"). Yes, there are plenty of less qualified people who get into top schools because of their money - I would never deny that (certified moron and your fellow Harvard alum Jared Kushner says hi). But just because someone is wealthy and got into a top school doesn't make them dumb and doesn't mean they just got in because they are rich. Kind of like just because someone is a minority or FGLI or an athlete or whatever else doesn't mean they wouldn't have gotten in regardless of their preferred quality. That is an incredibly simplistic way of looking at the world. MLK would be rolling over in his grave...

You just acknowledged that most of these kids are white and acknowledged that less qualified people get into schools because of their money, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me on here other than my tone/attitude.

If you have a better explanation for why so many more private school kids are getting into top colleges this year than last year other than money I'd love to hear it.