<p>According to the author of this article, yes they are. The</a> dangerous wealth of the Ivy League - BusinessWeek.com- msnbc.com</p>
<p>The article is <em>slightly</em> old but still relevant. It raises an interesting point about the effect the ivies plus are having on many of the nation's other colleges and universities. </p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
<p>They have large endowments because they earned it. They get a lot of donations because they earn them. They get many grants because those who give the grants see it worthy and the school earns it.</p>
<p>In no circumstance should something be taken from somebody or some thing that earned/worked for it, to be given to somebody or something that didn't earn it.</p>
<p>Well, no, of course they're not too rich. No one is ever too rich.</p>
<p>However, it kind of would be nice if the universities could use their endowments in more benevolent ways. For instance, instead of offering free lattes on Thursdays, Ivy University could instead sponsor a struggling rural school in the mountains somewhere. Not only would this look good on paper, but I think the students would also appreciate it more if they were helping other students in need rather than getting free lattes.</p>
<p>I'm sure the Ivies already do have programs like these.</p>
<p>why would students want to help other students. Seems kind of counter productive helping the competition.</p>
<p>Not a nice picture showing the hoarding of billions of dollars by a few schools while so many deserving students across America struggle financially. Haven't these huge endowments been subsidized by taxpayers? Perhaps these wealthy schools can expand their enrollments, eliminate tuition, or help out a fellow school in financial crisis. Do you think the endowments are already a target of President Obama's "spread the wealth" mission?</p>
<p>Universities with large endowments use a large chunk of their annual gains on financial aid. Schools like Harvard and Princeton are practically free for students from families earning under 100,000 and they cost very little to students from families with incomes under $200,000. That's not bad. </p>
<p>And I am not sure what is wrong with universities being rich. They accumulate their wealth through alumni donations and sound management of their assets. It's not like they operate at a profit at the expense of students and accumulate wealth that way. Universiites are non-profit institutions. 100% of the money they earn from tuition is spent on their operating budget.</p>
<p>Bottom line, universities can only spend 4%-6% of the value of their endowment an annually. That money is used to provide students with financial aid, on financing certain departments and faculty and on the maintenance of facilities.</p>
<p>In response to the comment from Alexandre, "They accumulate their wealth through alumni donations and sound management of their assets.", the following is from the Yale Daily News:</p>
<p>'DEFRAYING COLLEGE COSTS</p>
<p>The stimulus raises the ceiling on Pell grants — federal need-based scholarships for low-income students — by $500 (to $5,350) next year and by another $200 the following year. The package features $200 million for federal work-study programs, in addition to the $980 million provided through regular budget processes, Jacob said. The legislation also includes a $2,500 tuition tax credit that is refundable for low-income families.</p>
<p>The grant money for college education may help the University defray the costs of financial aid more than it helps Yale students afford tuition. If a Yale student receives a federal grant or outside scholarship, Yale reduces that student’s financial aid by that amount so that the overall financial aid package remains the same.</p>
<p>In other words, with a higher federal grant, Yale gives less of its own money to student’s financial aid package.</p>
<p>“In general terms, increasing Pell grants for everyone in the U.S. is a great thing,” said Caesar Storlazzi, the University’s director of Student Financial Services. “For Yale students specifically, it’s really not going to make any difference.” '</p>
<p>Basically, I am of the opinion that our Ivy League President is sending large sums of money to Ivy League Universities with multi billion dollar endowments. If he was so interested in spreading the wealth, why not limit the money to universities and community colleges with endowments under two billion dollars.</p>
<p>hamptomjp, I think though the student would receive the pell grant whether he or she were attending yale or not, so the president isn't sending large sums of money to ivies, it goes where the student goes. i don't have exact numbers but i think only a small percentage of pell grant students go to yale anyway.</p>
<p>
[quote]
why would students want to help other students. Seems kind of counter productive helping the competition.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I meant that they should help a struggling high school or something. Not another college.</p>
<p>letseat, If a 20+ Billion Dollar endowed school offers student based aid to let's say, 4000 of its undergraduate students, that would equate to roughly 21 million dollars. You're right, relatively speaking, that $21 M is not a large sum of money to that school, but to a smaller endowed school or Community College, that is huge. Please understand that I do not advocate for redistribution of wealth, but if the liberal agenda does, then they should take their own medicine and stop talking out of both sides of their mouths. By their logic, Pell Grants should go to needy schools, not wealthy schools. Less well endowed schools should should have the same equal opportunities as their wealthy counterparts! Remember, there are more students at the less well endowed schools and they "deserve" the same opportunities afforded to the students of the well endowed schools.</p>
<p>Dr. Horse in Post #2 said: "They have large endowments because they earned it." Well under our Liberal Ivy Educated President's plan, these well endowed colleges should "Do the right thing and SHARE THE WEALTH". In fact, under Obama's plan it appears to be the RIGHT TIME to TAX these well endowed schools and share the wealth. What say Ye?</p>
<p>I don't believe in taxes, so no they shouldn't be taxed.</p>
<p>"i don't believe in taxes"</p>
<p>oh ok</p>
<p>Dr. Horse, The reason I suggest taxing these mega endowed schools is because our Liberal President wants to tax the wealthy and spread the wealth. That should also go for his alma mater and other largely endowed universities. Personally, I feel we should all pay our "fair share", but I disagree with what Obama considers "fair share". I am of the opinion that if you work hard and properly plan your life, you should be able to enjoy the benefits of the discipline required to reach success. If the Ivy's choose to espouse a liberal agenda, then they should have those rules apply to their own endowments. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I do find it interesting that Yale is willing to increase financial aid while simultaneously lay off 300 workers and throw them into a financial tailspin, leaving our government to pay their health insurance and unemployment benefits. I would think the university would consider not ruining the lives of their soon to be former employees before they offered financial aid to those that cannot afford to pay their way through such an expensive college. Surely these bright kids can find a good education at their state universities and not disrupt the lives of the current employees of Yale. I personally find this distasteful.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...I don't believe in taxes
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who here likes taxes (esp. those of us who are more responsible and conservative w/ our $$/lifestyle - who inevitably end up paying for everyone else's mess)?</p>
<p>But that doesn't mean we should live in some fantasy world.</p>
<p>W/o taxes, there wouldn't be roads for you to get to work or home (or mass transit), no one would be able to fly, there would be no police, fire, rescue/ambulance services, no military to protect the nation, etc.</p>
<p>And keep in mind, people who are at the top of income heap (basically, those whose earnings come from the labor of hundreds of thousands rather than their own direct labor) are the ones who ultimately utilize and benefit the most from these govt. services.</p>
<p>Well I don't see any ability for the federal govt to make roads in the constitution, except post roads. I don't see anywhere, where they are supposed to run or subsidize mass transit, I don't see anywhere where they are supposed to fund education, as well as police, fire and rescue/ambulance or airtrafic. So all in all those things should be left up to private enterprise or the states. So sorry but we dont need to be taxed on these things.</p>
<p>As for the Federal Govt, they don't need taxes except excise. if we were to cut programs to try and make the government the size it was 20 years ago, the US govt could still function 100% and not have any taxes at all for any citizen or business. </p>
<p>Taxes are the biggest scam there is. Not to mention that there is no law that actually says you need to pay the income tax.</p>
<p>The federal and state governments tend to take a lot of money and give failing results. private industry wouldnt do that, due to competition. </p>
<p>So there is really no need for taxes. Everything can be provided at a much cheaper rate through non taxation.</p>