<p>Brad DeLong, Harvard grad and Berkeley Professor, questions Harvard's educational mission:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The population of people qualified and wanting to go to elite American colleges has multiplied between five and tenfold over the past half century. During that time the University of California has scaled itself up roughly from 4,000 to 40,000 undergraduates a year. Harvard has received roughly $15 billion or so in gifts to carry out its mission as a charitable philanthropy and yet has only managed to scale up from roughly 1200 to 1600 undergraduates a year.</p>
<p>As an alumnus, I think that pretty much speaks for itself.</p>
<p>I had a very good time as a Harvard undergraduate because I found a niche in it--Social Studies--that functioned like a small liberal arts college and because I very quickly found my way as a sophomore into the graduate economics classes (which I had the math to handle). But many others I know did not, and my years as a junior faculty member and as head tutor of economics make me think that there is an enormous disproportion between resource inputs and educational outputs. This is a place where the ethos of the senior Arts and Sciences faculty--well, I remember one dinner at one New England college where a political science professor just back from a semester visiting Harvard said that his first week there Harvey Mansfield had stopped by, looked into his office, and said: "You should close your door. If you don't, undergraduates may wander in."
<p>The often used quip is that Harvard is more a place to be educated by your peers than by faculty. I have friends from Cornell, now grad students at Harvard, who are astonished at the lack of undergraduate attention at Harvard.</p>
<p>This is to not even question how many more undergraduates Harvard could educate with its resources.</p>
<p>There's a good reason why we throw fish at them when they come to play hockey in Ithaca...</p>
<p>Of course Harvard COULD educate more undergrads. That should be obvious. Harvard wants to maintain it's brand..... that is all it is. It is kind of like how they make very few Harley Davidson motorcycles. They could indeed make more, but then it would seem less cool to own one. As it is Harvard's brand is unbeatable-not because of the education you get but because of how exclusive it is. If you let more people into Harvard you cheapen Harvard's brand, and remove the reason most people wanted to go there in the first place (hint: it was not because they thought they would get the best education in the world). IOW they would destroy what makes going to Harvard seem so special.</p>
<p>I do not think it is a good reason. I think it is their reason for not letting more people in. If it right or not has nothing to do with this. </p>
<p>Cayugared: Yes I do . Letting more people in will make them appear less prestigious. That is the way it is. While I think they should try to educate more people (Cornell is the only Ivy I like at all) it is not going to happen. Maybe a jump of 200-500 so they can admit more legacies or something, but I think thats it.</p>
<p>You aren't denying 25,000 students per year an education though. You're denying them entry into one private school. There are many more schools that they can go to and still recieve a top notch education.</p>
<p>Coincidentally, one of my professors at Cornell (who himself was a Harvard alum) felt that Cornell should aim to enroll at least 20,000 undergraduates. His rational was that Cornell was already so large and diverse that the extra students wouldn't be diluting the Cornell experience at all, and that it would be extra tuition money to help cement the quality of faculty and programs.</p>
<p>But the argument is that you already have a $35 billion endowment, and the marginal cost of educating an extra student (or 3,000 students) is pretty low.</p>
<p>Harvard is a private institution and they can accept (and educate) as many students as they want. I'm not a Harvard fan at all but I think it's kind of unfair how much the school gets bashed in this thread.
Is it also a bad thing that Harvard tries to enroll more and more students from low-income families who couldn't afford a college education without financial aid?</p>
<p>^^^
I agree. I mean, would it be nice for them to take more students? Sure. But they're private, they don't get any tax money (do they?), they can choose to enroll as many or few as they see fit. If enough alumni decide that that is a bad thing they'll start getting fewer donations and then start accepting more students. Just because you don't get into Harvard doesn't mean you can't have a great college experience, and if you actually are one of the however many people that are "qualified but not accepted" there are several schools that would love to have you, and you would love to attend.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There's a good reason why we throw fish at them when they come to play hockey in Ithaca...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This was EXACTLY the kind of throw-in I expected somebody named "CayugaRed" to say while slamming Harvard!</p>
<p>Harvardians have advantage, though, because Andy from "The Office" is a loud and proud Cornell alum. I guess you shouted "SAFETY SCHOOL" at them too many times during hockey games...</p>