If I never hear the word MAGA talking point ever again, I’d die happy. I said that based on a NYTimes article. Columbia has had a deep drop over the past 4 years. Harvard has had a much smaller one.

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.

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.

MIT is so strapped that they're shuttering 3 of their campus libraries, and if there's any school that ought to rolling in it in the current Big Tech boom it's MIT.

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.

Anonymous wrote:There has been a dip in applications to Harvard over the past few years. It may be easier to get into right now than it was a few years ago. Even Harvard ebbs and flows as far as number and quality of applicants. They will publish the numbers in October.

there was an increase during test optional covid days of mostly people who had no shot. things normalized after that, but I wouldnt fall for MAGA talking points that "nobody wants to go to harvard anymore .. just look at their falling application rates".

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

There has been a dip in applications to Harvard over the past few years. It may be easier to get into right now than it was a few years ago. Even Harvard ebbs and flows as far as number and quality of applicants. They will publish the numbers in October.

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 had 4 to Harvard last year, 6 the year before, and 8 this year (not all posted to IG). But then different numbers to Yale each of those years, and Princeton and Stanford and Penn and so on. But overall, pretty much the same schools just slightly different distribution each year.

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.

Yes. Cannot draw any conclusions off one year and a few schools.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if you should have done this with last year's data. This year is still coming in. I know Regis, for example, hasn't posted a kid who got into Harvard.

HYPS is weird, no? Isn't it usually HYPSM?

Most of the schools post 5 year matriculation on their websites. That would be the most fulsome data.

this year is across the board better than the five year average

Anyone knows why ?

Every university in America is financially struggling right now and every TT/2T/3T has an abundance of families that can help with that problem.

Schools with $10BN+ endowments aren't financially struggling.

Actually they are; they're generally extremely limited in what they can do with most of that endowment money and they're neither willing nor able to dip into it to sustain operations. And in general, the richer the university, the more money they're getting from research grants and the more eager the current administration is to hurt them by cutting those.

The vast majority of them will be fine.

Even Harvard is sending out cost-cutting memos; the fact that they'll be "fine" does not mean they're not looking to tighten up their finances a bit, and in the current climate, letting in an extra 50 barely-qualified rich white kids a year for a few years will not cause any legal or reputational issues and is vastly preferable to more permanent measures like closing a department.

What does race have to do with it. If they are so focused on money as you obsessively insist they are with no shades of gray in your argument then I think they would take money from any race.

Clearly you didn’t go to one of these schools as you can’t construct a coherent argument that considers both sides and lacks noticeable holes. SMDH.

Clearly I've touched a nerve here.

Why did you say white?

Yup. Love the passive aggressive response when called out for a dumb comment turning something into a race issue that isn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if you should have done this with last year's data. This year is still coming in. I know Regis, for example, hasn't posted a kid who got into Harvard.

HYPS is weird, no? Isn't it usually HYPSM?

Most of the schools post 5 year matriculation on their websites. That would be the most fulsome data.

this year is across the board better than the five year average

Anyone knows why ?

Every university in America is financially struggling right now and every TT/2T/3T has an abundance of families that can help with that problem.

Schools with $10BN+ endowments aren't financially struggling.

Actually they are; they're generally extremely limited in what they can do with most of that endowment money and they're neither willing nor able to dip into it to sustain operations. And in general, the richer the university, the more money they're getting from research grants and the more eager the current administration is to hurt them by cutting those.

The vast majority of them will be fine.

Even Harvard is sending out cost-cutting memos; the fact that they'll be "fine" does not mean they're not looking to tighten up their finances a bit, and in the current climate, letting in an extra 50 barely-qualified rich white kids a year for a few years will not cause any legal or reputational issues and is vastly preferable to more permanent measures like closing a department.

What does race have to do with it. If they are so focused on money as you obsessively insist they are with no shades of gray in your argument then I think they would take money from any race.

Clearly you didn’t go to one of these schools as you can’t construct a coherent argument that considers both sides and lacks noticeable holes. SMDH.

Clearly I've touched a nerve here.

Why did you say white?

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.

The point is that it's broadly distributed - if it was just Fieldston seeing a spike then you'd think maybe it had something to do with Fieldston, if everybody is suddenly doing numbers you would normally expect from the next tier up then it's hard to credit that to the schools or the kids.