<p>It was MIT's charter that stood in the way of a merger. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The proposed merger nearly became a reality. A majority of trustees from both institutions approved the scheme, but it was financially contingent upon MIT’s ability to sell its property in Boston’s Back Bay to raise funds for rebuilding on Harvard’s land at Soldiers Field. In September 1905 the intended merger failed because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court determined that MIT could not sell its Back Bay lands without violating the terms under which it had originally acquired them.
<p>Harvard's math and science departments are among the best in the country. The math department is ranked together with MIT's and Princeton's.
There was a bias against engineering as not being compatible with a liberal arts education (same reason why music theory was taught but not music performance). But Summers' decision to expand the renamed School of Engineering and Applied Science was supported by the faculty. SEAS continues to grow.</p>
<p>Ha, what a bunch of idiots. I've made around 40% in the year before last and 25% last year on my stock trading. To make those kind of returns, I've been shorting our financial stocks (first E-Trade, then Citigroup, then around a dozen at once), and, for the most part, betting against our economy. </p>
<p>Ironically, what was seen by Harvard/Yale/etc as a safe mix of growth potential and safety turned into a deathtrap. I can't decide whether to chuckle or look on in fear for myself.</p>
<p>To anybody here that trades actively: if you're not already in cash or equivalents, I'd try to get there soon.</p>
<p>The timberland valuations is a horror show yet to unfold. It is a bubble about to blow wide open. Yale spearheaded an idea that asset growth time frame should match endowment time frames of 30 to 40 years. Timber Management companies (Madoff in loggers clothing) jumped in a facilitated the sale of timber lands from timber companies to endowments, who then started trading them around, running up the price to levels that can in no what be justified by the timber on the land. </p>
<p>The endowment managers could declare a profit every time they sold timberland at inflated prices to other endowments or off-sheet entities. And the circle went round and round, the managers looked gold ---- until somebody wants to step off.</p>
<p>^ Agreed, timberland is one giant cluster----.
The current pricing on the land in no way reflects the actual (in practice, what they can make by selling the timber) value of the land itself. When that market starts to collapse (which it inevitably will), there will be some stunning losses to be had by numerous endowments.</p>
<p>Don't you love the logic of these guys? Well, the market went down 45% and our investments only went down 22%, so we deserve large bonuses.</p>
<p>You want bonuses?... for losing money? (But hey, it was only $8 billion they lost.) I've got news for you clowns. I can get sixteen monkeys to run the fund and lose less money. We could have given all 6,600 Harvard undergraduate students a million dollars each and not have lost as much. </p>
<p>Some people needs to go back to school and retake the logic course.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Don't you love the logic of these guys? Well, the market went down 45% and our investments only went down 22%, so we deserve large bonuses.</p>
<p>You want bonuses?... for losing money?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know the specifics of this case, but I certainly understand the logic. I'm not sure I'm following your logic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can get sixteen monkeys to run the fund and lose less money. We could have given all 6,600 Harvard undergraduate students a million dollars each and not have lost as much.