NY Times editorial: "Universities Like Yale Need a Reckoning"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kamala is a lightweight and should never have been selected for VP. The clip of her stupid answer to a 2019 interview about inmate trans care is evidence enough about her judgment. The ad the Trump campaign made out of that clip was part of the reason they won.

Here is the fact check on that ...

https://www.factcheck.org/2024/10/harris-position-on-health-care-for-transgender-prisoners-and-detainees/

Yes, this is required by the Constitution as interpreted by courts.

"under Donald Trump’s administration, these surgeries were available to, on a medical necessity basis, to people in the federal prison system. And I think frankly that ad from the Trump campaign is a little bit of like throwing, ... stones when you’re living in a glass house."

Trump is in favor too, as he did nothing to stop this federally required health care.

But no one bothered to read past the click bait ad. That is the problem with the average American voter.

Lady, these non-college educated people who voted for Trump do not care about facts or fact checking. I don't understand why you can't grasp this. They watch reality TV and football games and consume right wing media. They literally look at Trump and think, yes this is someone who cares about me and who is fit to lead.

The democratic party needs to understand this if they ever hope to take back power.

Dude, that was literally the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Endowment hording" is leveled at universities so wealthy they can't be punished or controlled by the public purse strings.

I agree to some degree with other bullet points. But the people who want to knock these schools off of their high horse's should drop the sour grapes arguments.

Is there a proposed solution to endowment hoarding? Big endowments will be confiscated and distributed to all other colleges in the name of equity?

I think this point is less about schools with larger vs smaller/no endowments and more that schools with substantial endowments should have higher withdrawal rates and use the money productively to address the identified problems (admit more students, reach people outside of the university, etc).

Harvard has been in business for 388 years. Pretty sure they've figured out how to manage their priorities and portfolio without your help. 🤡

I’m explaining what the author’s point was but definitely shoot the messenger. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

Wait.... who, in your mind, is the messenger? The author? Or you??? Maybe read a little bit about main character syndrome and then take a walk, yea?

The point about endowment hoarding is made by the author. I was explaining to the previous poster what the author’s point was, because he/she asked a question that seemed to misunderstand the point.

Maybe take your own advice and read. If you can, that is.

Err.... somebody wrote something in response to what you wrote. Seems evident that person can read...or are you suggesting they have employed some kind of high tech screen reader and speech-to-text tool? What angle are you actually playing???

Given your use of ellipses and three question marks, it is clear you are the same “somebody” you are referring to (who did the exact same thing). Along with your irrationally strong reaction, unfamiliarity with the phrase “don’t shoot the messenger” and its meaning, and inability to follow a back-and-forth logically, the College and University forum may not be for you. Bye.

[Anonymous]

I agree that endowment hoarding is a gross exercise in greed. Regis high school was lucky enough to have an enormously generous and well invested grant over 100 years ago and is able to use that endowment to provide free tuition for all applicants. There are a few colleges that could also pull this off if they wanted to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the comments correctly points out that the problem with these schools is their extreme exclusivity. Any school that rejects over 90% of applicants should lose all federal funding. Universities are supposed to educate American students, not function like gatekeeping country clubs.

These schools are not unlimited in size or capacity. How would this be possible? A lottery system? Would it be open to all, regardless of their HS record? Or would there be some floor, which by definition would exclude some/many potential applicants?

[Anonymous]

As hopeful helpful information about Harvard costs, the following is from the school's web site:


Harvard costs what your family can afford. We make sure of that.

If your family's income is less than $85,000, you'll pay nothing.

For families who earn between $85,000 and $150,000, the expected contribution is between zero and ten percent of your annual income.

Families who earn more than $150,000 may still qualify for financial aid.

Families at all income levels who have significant assets are asked to pay more than those without assets.

For more than ninety percent of American families, Harvard costs less than a public university.

All students receive the same aid regardless of nationality or citizenship.

To learn more, check out our financial aid fact sheet or see the breakdown of the full cost of attendance. You can also compare Harvard's cost to that of other schools with the MyinTuition Quick College Cost Estimator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The author has some good points, though there is little new here that has not been written in other recent election post-mortems.
Regardless of all hand wringing about elite universities’ collective role, we still chose to send ours to one, will likely send our D25 to one, and went to ivies ourselves. From the parent page and talks with parents, it has been fascinating to learn there were more college republican groups on campus this year than for the past cycles, though the dominant group is overwhelmingly liberal or at least never-Trump. It does not distress me nor my wife to have our kids be at liberal leaning institutions: all the great ones are. There have always been plenty of social liberals in their 20s who later become fiscal conservatives in their 40s. Bright minds can see the benefits of multiple points of view and our kid’s ivy for the most part is doing much better with supporting all views and not banning certain opinions than they were a couple of yrs ago. The tide was turned on safe-spaces and memorized virtue-signaling speech. Yes, even at ivies, the pendulum has started to swing back. The education is very much well worth the $, with the top faculty and top careers/phD/JD feeding that happen with such a known school. Zero regrets.

Thank you so much for this. We’re starting to focus more deeply on the college search with DC26, and we are eager to find rigorous schools that welcome multiple points of view, both socially and in the classroom. Not because we are especially conservative (we’re not), but because we are eager for our kids to challenge their/our assumptions and consider the world from many different points of view. This includes a range of economic perspectives, as well, which I know is not easy to find at elite universities.

On a related note, I just saw this article but have not read it yet. I hope it’s a harbinger of better things to come (a correction / the pendulum swinging back):

Thinking Allowed: Promoting Free Speech in the Classroom

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/experience/news-history/thinking-allowed-promoting-free-speech-classroom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Dems we have had in leadership recently were not from Ivy league colleges---Biden, Harris.

I don't think many criticizing have experience at the colleges themselves. My kid is at one currently and it is much more 'mainstream' than our public school system here in NoVa. He also is not afraid to voice any of his opinions. He's not at Yale or Columbia or Harvard, but his school teaches all sides of the coin. It does not have a 'liberal agenda'.

I agree the cost (and we are full pay) is absolutely ridiculous. While their financial aid is fantastic for the poor, it is prohibitive to many MC/UMC families.

I’d love to know which school. Not to argue with you or to disparage it. But as a data point in our college search with DC. As you said, it is hard to know what’s true right now from the outside looking in.

[Anonymous]

I thought this article was a big word salad.

And I'm generally down on the uber rich, money hoarding colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Endowment hording" is leveled at universities so wealthy they can't be punished or controlled by the public purse strings.

I agree to some degree with other bullet points. But the people who want to knock these schools off of their high horse's should drop the sour grapes arguments.

Is there a proposed solution to endowment hoarding? Big endowments will be confiscated and distributed to all other colleges in the name of equity?

I think this point is less about schools with larger vs smaller/no endowments and more that schools with substantial endowments should have higher withdrawal rates and use the money productively to address the identified problems (admit more students, reach people outside of the university, etc).

Harvard has been in business for 388 years. Pretty sure they've figured out how to manage their priorities and portfolio without your help. 🤡

I’m explaining what the author’s point was but definitely shoot the messenger. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

Wait.... who, in your mind, is the messenger? The author? Or you??? Maybe read a little bit about main character syndrome and then take a walk, yea?

The point about endowment hoarding is made by the author. I was explaining to the previous poster what the author’s point was, because he/she asked a question that seemed to misunderstand the point.

Maybe take your own advice and read. If you can, that is.

Err.... somebody wrote something in response to what you wrote. Seems evident that person can read...or are you suggesting they have employed some kind of high tech screen reader and speech-to-text tool? What angle are you actually playing???

Given your use of ellipses and three question marks, it is clear you are the same “somebody” you are referring to (who did the exact same thing). Along with your irrationally strong reaction, unfamiliarity with the phrase “don’t shoot the messenger” and its meaning, and inability to follow a back-and-forth logically, the College and University forum may not be for you. Bye.

Progress! You have now conceded that I am able to read. Just a few more pithy retorts and surely you'll stop sneering at us from behind your bifocals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The author has some good points, though there is little new here that has not been written in other recent election post-mortems.
Regardless of all hand wringing about elite universities’ collective role, we still chose to send ours to one, will likely send our D25 to one, and went to ivies ourselves. From the parent page and talks with parents, it has been fascinating to learn there were more college republican groups on campus this year than for the past cycles, though the dominant group is overwhelmingly liberal or at least never-Trump. It does not distress me nor my wife to have our kids be at liberal leaning institutions: all the great ones are. There have always been plenty of social liberals in their 20s who later become fiscal conservatives in their 40s. Bright minds can see the benefits of multiple points of view and our kid’s ivy for the most part is doing much better with supporting all views and not banning certain opinions than they were a couple of yrs ago. The tide was turned on safe-spaces and memorized virtue-signaling speech. Yes, even at ivies, the pendulum has started to swing back. The education is very much well worth the $, with the top faculty and top careers/phD/JD feeding that happen with such a known school. Zero regrets.

Thank you so much for this. We’re starting to focus more deeply on the college search with DC26, and we are eager to find rigorous schools that welcome multiple points of view, both socially and in the classroom. Not because we are especially conservative (we’re not), but because we are eager for our kids to challenge their/our assumptions and consider the world from many different points of view. This includes a range of economic perspectives, as well, which I know is not easy to find at elite universities.

On a related note, I just saw this article but have not read it yet. I hope it’s a harbinger of better things to come (a correction / the pendulum swinging back):

Thinking Allowed: Promoting Free Speech in the Classroom

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/experience/news-history/thinking-allowed-promoting-free-speech-classroom

FIRE ranks schools on free speech: https://www.thefire.org/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As hopeful helpful information about Harvard costs, the following is from the school's web site:


Harvard costs what your family can afford. We make sure of that.

If your family's income is less than $85,000, you'll pay nothing.

For families who earn between $85,000 and $150,000, the expected contribution is between zero and ten percent of your annual income.

Families who earn more than $150,000 may still qualify for financial aid.

Families at all income levels who have significant assets are asked to pay more than those without assets.

For more than ninety percent of American families, Harvard costs less than a public university.

All students receive the same aid regardless of nationality or citizenship.

To learn more, check out our financial aid fact sheet or see the breakdown of the full cost of attendance. You can also compare Harvard's cost to that of other schools with the MyinTuition Quick College Cost Estimator.

But there's always fine print and for these colleges it's "with typical assets". so family who earn 85-150k, "with typical assets". for Harvard, that's 200k. so for most UMC families who have been saving for our working life, even those of us making 140k, financial aid is limited. certainly not lower than public. but more generous than say a BC or some other private with pockets not quite as deep..

I'm a progressive liberal, but the idea of making these colleges need blind to international students rubs me the wrong way. American tax payers support these schools by NOT taxing their endowments and paving the highways that lead to them. (etc). I think they could be more generous to US kids.

[Anonymous]

Emory has already started moving its endowment into Bitcoin. These people are not dumb. They plan decades into the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Emory has already started moving its endowment into Bitcoin. These people are not dumb. They plan decades into the future.

harvest invested big in timberland and it was a debacle.

I think Yale's endowment grew 4% last year - far below a low fee index fund.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought this article was a big word salad.

And I'm generally down on the uber rich, money hoarding colleges.

+100 I got nothing out of it.

[Anonymous]

Demonizing universities is a distraction from the real issues. I wish people would stop seriously entertaining RWNJ talking points.