“… Calling itself Free Harvard, Fair Harvard, the group ran on a proposal that Harvard should be free to all undergraduates because the university earns so much money from its $37.6 billion endowment. It tied the notion to another, equally provocative question …”
A couple of thoughts come to mind.
- You have a better chance of seeing God than Harvard being free to all students.
- If it were to happen Harvard would consistently be the most selective college in the world, and they would have to significantly expand their admissions department.
- If it were to happen it would likely be in 2019 the year after our daughter graduates.
So are the students going to have a sit in and a hissy fit because they didn’t get what they wanted?
Free Harvard? Of course, it can be done. First, Mr. Ron Unz should donate something like $100 million to signal that he is for real. Then, with enough credibility (i.e., money talks), he can go ahead to convince other Free Harvard, Fair Harvard backers and believers to come up something like $9 billion and $900 million. My back-of-envelop calculation suggests that a total of $10 billion new endowment should be able to get all Harvard undergraduates a free education. Then, mission accomplished!
Any thoughts of using a large sum of the existing endowment of $37.6 billion for new purposes are simply not sincere enough. Existing endowments are mostly under contractual obligations to be used for pre-approved purposes. You do not need a lawyer to tell you this.
Personally, I think there is a non-zero possibility that in my life time Harvard may be able to secure enough new endowment to make all Harvard undergraduates free-of-tuition. Then, a few money-able universities are likely to do the same thing, such as Yale, Princeton, and Stanford.
The problem is that this is not the best use of money. Think about it: who would benefit the most when all Harvard undergraduates have a full ride? Of course, they are those wealthy families that currently pay the full price tag and actually do not need any aid at all.
Overall, a stupid, insincere political pony and dog show. There are far much betters way to spend other people’s (donation) money.
Why should Harvard spend money for free(er) tuition to the kids of one-percenters? Why not endow more professorships or expand capital investments or be less strident in employee-union contract negotiations? I’d rather Harvard give its mail clerks, support staff and lawn maintenance people more money rather than let millionaires’ kids have to figure out what to do with that trust fund.
Or perhaps a slightly different approach. Layoff half the administrators, chop down the government regulations mandating the regulations, and reduce tuition accordingly…
…and then not Joe awoke from his splendid dream. And upon regaining his wits, he broke down and wept
Layoff half of the administrators? How much can a university save from this kind of action? To answer this, one needs to understand how a university is run. In general, the salary and benefit for the faculty and staff is about 55-60% of the entire university’s operating budget. How about the administrators? It is about 2-4%. The other goes to physical facility and its expansion and maintenance, etc. So if you layoff half of the administrators, you can save about 1-2% of total cost. If we are talking about a tuition-driven university (no much endowment and grant income), you can save a student about 1-2% of tuition. What an effective solution!
I am a faculty member. I have too many faculty colleagues who do not think too well and always point their fingers at the administrators because administrators are easy targets. Just like we can point our fingers at wall street bankers any time we wish as if then those lying and money wasting (on perks and parties) STEM entrepreneurs in Silicone Valley do not exit.
I am not saying university administrators and bankers are all innocent. But they do provide important economic functions. Similarly, we also need STEM innovators. Let us just think before pointing our fingers.