<p>Mr. Payne: check the biography of Deval Patrick. He is the type of students for whom financial aid was designed:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Patrick was born on Chicago's South Side in 1956, into an African-American family living on welfare and residing in a one-bedroom apartment (his father was Pat Patrick, a member of jazz musician Sun Ra's band). While in middle school, a teacher of his referred him to A Better Chance, the national resource (not-for-profit organization) for identifying, recruiting and developing leaders among academically gifted students of color, which enabled him to attend Milton Academy in Milton, Massachusetts.[2]</p>
<p>Patrick graduated from Milton Academy in 1974 and from Harvard College in 1978. He then spent a year working with the United Nations in Africa. In 1979, Patrick returned to the United States and enrolled at Harvard Law School. While in law school, Patrick was elected president of the Legal Aid Bureau, where he first worked defending poor families in Middlesex County.
<p>Should a free ride be given to childen of billionnaires? millionnaires? If not where does one draw the line? Very soon, you'll have exactly the calculations already in place now as to how and to whom to distribute financial aid.</p>
<p>Wouldn't there be no line at all if tuition was not an issue? That's my argument. I don't give a **** about calculations. Just let the best students in - however Harvard deems fit. The argument for someone from a middle class or upper middle class family not receiving aid is false though. Ok, so perhaps the parents made errors in their financial decisions - and the parents of lower income parents did not? It seems like the only delineation is income - which is an extremely poor delination if it's against the parent/parents. What it comes down to is this, you are blaming the kids for the sins of the father. And if that's the case, who cares what the income is at all?</p>
<p>Income is not the only issue. For the college bound, there is very detailed information about the current policy and economic assumptions underlying financial aid rules. </p>
<p>A parent deciding NOT to support a child's education up to the parent's level of ability is a decision I would not make as a parent--I've seen examples of parents in my generation making that decision, and I won't follow their example--but for young people of all income levels of high ability, there are college choices. Anyone who is truly ready for study at Harvard in the current generation of young people will surely get a "merit" scholarship somewhere decent.</p>
<p>So, Mr. Payne, should Harvard subsidize billionnaires and millionnaires? This is indeed the billion dollar question, isn't it?</p>
<p>As for middle class applicants, Harvard does subsidize many of them. I suspect that the majority of the financial aid actually goes to middle class families (defined as earning $45k nationally).</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, Mr. Payne, should Harvard subsidize billionnaires and millionnaires? This is indeed the billion dollar question, isn't it?
[/quote]
Not only that, if there was a son/daughter of a trillionaire and Harvard deemed that they should be admitted, then let them come (and not charge tuition). I'd reckon it'd probably be in Harvard's best interest to let that person come anyway, regardless of if they met the requirements or not. FYI - a subsidy generally refers to a government giving a grant, not a private institution. A private institution giving a grant is usually known as charitable donation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for middle class applicants, Harvard does subsidize many of them. I suspect that the majority of the financial aid actually goes to middle class families (defined as earning $45k nationally).
<p>Mr. Payne. Read Daniel Golden. He's upset that Harvard and others let sons and daughters of the very rich come (even if they pay full fare and donate loads of money before of afterward).</p>
<p>Well, those alums are idiotic then if they continue to donate for that reason to a $30B war chest that can easily supply every student at the school with aid.</p>
<p>The problem of a student whose parents are not even willing to fill out the FAFSA form, much less to pay the calculated EFC, on behalf of their own children is a difficult problem, and I empathize a LOT with students who have that problem. In my generation, the usual way to deal with that problem was to work one's way through a school with an affordable list price, in my case the state flagship university of my state. Today, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, it is actually EASIER for a high-stat, low-parental-support student to find a way to go to a good college--merit scholarship programs have expanded at least as fast as the dizzying pace of increase in list price at colleges around the country. Yeah, personally as a parent I will put all my assets and all my creditworthiness at the disposal of my children's educational plans, but for young people who are on their own, there is a way to get a good college education. The Ivy League colleges and a few others have a uniform policy of expecting families to pay according to their means for their children's UNDERGRADUATE educations, but at the graduate school level most highly capable students can get portable fellowships and need not have any financial worries. Professional school study can also be highly subsidized, and as it is usually a license to coin money anyway, a professional degree is often well worth borrowing money to obtain. Not getting mom and dad's money to study at Harvard may feel like a raw deal, but it is not a barrier to getting a good college education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Smart enough not to give scholarships to the children of billionaires.
[/quote]
What if they won't provide for college. A child of a middle class family with support is actually in better shape than a child of a billionaire who won't provide support. This is easy to see.</p>
<p>It's important to keep in mind that a $3.3 billion increase in the endowment does not translate to a $3.3 billion increase in Harvard College's budget.</p>
<p>Harvard manages its endowment conservatively, spending 4.5% to 5.0% each year. This allows for the real (inflation-adjusted) value of the endowment to increase. Spending less now translates to greater principle, and larger future payouts and increases.</p>
<p>Also, more pragmatically, a large portion of the endowment is tied up in restricted gifts (85% according to the alumni association). This includes things like named professorships, gifts to a specific school, etc. Gains from these restricted gifts couldn't be ethically used for Harvard College financial aid.</p>