<p>If Harvard has a 26 billion dollar endowment, why does it charge fees?</p>
<p>To keep that 26 billion dollar endowment...</p>
<p>People also are likely to appreciate more what they have to pay for.</p>
<p>Having fees also keeps people from applying on a whim. Right now, at least 80% of Harvard applicants have the academic background and intelligence to be able to graduate from Harvard if accepted. If Harvard were free, it would have to deal with a flood of unqualified applicants who'd want to try their luck to get a free education.</p>
<p>I do think, however, that Harvard could afford to make its financial aid even more generous (though not free). I don't, however, think that it should be free for everyone.</p>
<p>to the OP:</p>
<p>The Crimson did an editorial focus page on this recently. Go read it.</p>
<p>It charges fees because the endowment it uses to make even more money. Investments, etc. Harvard simply doesn't want to pay for its students tuitionts--which it easily could. Harvard as well could give some merit aid. But why would it?</p>
<p>To eliminate fees altogether would be a nice boost mostly for those who need it least. Students from families earning less than $60K already get a full ride. Those earning above that, up to about $150K - $200K, still can get financial aid, often in significant amounts depending on family circumstances. So who is left? The upper-middle class and the wealthy, that's who. The richest end of the social spectrum are ones left paying full freight. Do they need this gift?</p>
<p>Personally, I sure wouldn't mind if my daughter's fees went away tomorrow. In fact it would be great. But I'm not sure that from the school's perspective that would be the wisest way to spend that amount of money.</p>
<p>To try and discourage the lower income "class" of American society(like me:) !!!) from even thinking of applying.<br>
The majority of poor people don't even know that Harvard is now offering the full ride for 60,000 and below...</p>
<p>I think Harvard's trying very hard to tell people about the financial aid initiative (sending students to low income areas over spring break/summer, getting press coverage, holding info sessions, etc). How can they get the word out more effectively?</p>
<p>Basic economics. An organization does not use its savings or take out loans to finance its day to day operations. Such measures are only used for capital improvements.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I do think, however, that Harvard could afford to make its financial aid even more generous (though not free). I don't, however, think that it should be free for everyone....</p>
<p>...To eliminate fees altogether would be a nice boost mostly for those who need it least. Students from families earning less than $60K already get a full ride. Those earning above that, up to about $150K - $200K, still can get financial aid, often in significant amounts depending on family circumstances. So who is left? The upper-middle class and the wealthy, that's who. The richest end of the social spectrum are ones left paying full freight. Do they need this gift?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Personally, I sure wouldn't mind if my daughter's fees went away tomorrow. In fact it would be great. But I'm not sure that from the school's perspective that would be the wisest way to spend that amount of money.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You know, this is a very interesting conversation, and it seems to me that y'all have neglected one very important aspect, which is that Harvard is already completely free for an entire group of rather prominent students. Not only is tuition waived, but room, board, and stipend is also given out. And no, I'm not talking about the new financial aid policy to give free rides to anybody whose family makes less than 60k. No, I'm talking about Harvard systematically giving out free rides and stipends to a prominent group of students without any means-testing whatsoever. In other words, plenty of Harvard students who come from millionaire families are nevertheless getting free rides.</p>
<p>I am of course referring to all of the Harvard doctoral students, almost none of whom pay a dime to Harvard. In fact, Harvard actually pays these students to attend. Admittedly, it doesn't pay them very much, but Harvard is paying them something. Let's face it. A lot of Harvard's doctoral students come from quite wealthy backgrounds. But that doesn't matter. Harvard doesn't investigate the financial backgrounds of its doctoral students and then decide whether to give or withhold stipends or tuition waivers. Basically, everybody, rich or poor, gets a package.</p>
<p>So, northmomstar, you talk about Harvard shouldn't be free for everyone. Well, the fact is, right now, Harvard basically is free for almost all of its doctoral students. Coureur, you talk about Harvard giving gifts to those who need it the least. Yeah, well, one could say the same thing about the Harvard doctoral stipends. Let's be honest. A lot of Harvard doctoral students clearly don't "need" their stipend. But Harvard gives it to them anyway. </p>
<p>Furthermore, this ties into a related subject, which is the notion of merit scholarships. Many people have pointed out that Harvard does not offer merit scholarships. This is true...for the undergraduate program. But for the graduate programs, and particularly the doctoral programs, things are completely different. Harvard has often times been noted for giving a greater proportion of doctoral fellowships and larger doctoral stipends than do other schools. For example, I know one guy who was considering getting his doctorate at Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and some European school (I think Oxford) - and wound up choosing Harvard not only because he thought that Harvard was more aligned with his interests, but, frankly, also because was Harvard offering a 10k larger stipend and (more importantly) was offering it in the form of a full fellowship, whereas the others were offering their stipends contingent upon TA or RA work. Furthermore, it's not like he really "needed" the stipend, as his family is absolutely loaded. In other words, Harvard was not only offering him more money, but also was not requiring him to teach or do RA work. That's basically a merit scholarship right there. That's a merit scholarship by another name. For those who object, tell me, honestly, what's the difference between that and a merit scholarship?</p>
<p>Now, I know what y'all are going to say. You're going to say that undergrad is not comparable to doctorate. Well, why not? There is no rule written in stone that all doctoral students have to be funded. Harvard could start means-testing them. Harvard could also simply admit more doctoral students, but on the condition that they don't get any funding, and also have to pay tuition. The fact is, many people who get rejected from Harvard's doctoral programs are qualified to complete the program, and many of them are rich and could easily fund it themselves. Hence, they would not be deterred if they had to pay for everything out of pocket. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the reference to the $26 billion endowment is, I believe, to the entire endowment of ALL of Harvard. Not just Harvard College. Hence, one could say that right now Harvard is using its endowment (or the interest from it) to pay for tuition for some of its students, namely its doctoral students. </p>
<p>I personally think that newyorker has it right. Harvard could obviously waive tuition for all its undergrads, just like Cooper Union waives tuition for all its undergrads. Harvard just doesn't WANT to do that. In other words, Harvard has made an arbitrary decision that undergrad students (and master's and professional students) are different from doctoral students, and doctoral students should get full funding whereas the others should not. </p>
<p>But it seems pretty arbitrary to me to draw that line. Some would say that that's because doctorates are a labor of love and you won't earn much money from it, so you might as well get funded through your studies. However, I find that dubious. Certain doctoral programs at Harvard will lead to rather lucrative careers. Such as a doctorate in economics. Or business (at HBS). Or engineering/CS. However, certain Harvard undergrad, master's, or professional degrees don't lead to high-paying careers, relatively speaking. Like getting a bachelor's in Art History. Or a bachelor's in Religion. Or getting an MDiv. Or an Ed.M. Or getting an AM in, say, Anthropology, Music or Celtic Languages. Yet the fact is, the doctoral students in the lucrative fields get fully funded whereas these nonlucrative undergrad/master's programs do not. Seems as if it's a pretty arbitrary choice. </p>
<p>The only rationale I can see is that Harvard funds its doctorates because other schools fund their doctorates, and so if Harvard stops funding its doctorates, many of the best students may go to other schools. However, that doesn't answer the question as to why the Harvard stipends are often times significantly HIGHER than the stipends offered at other schools. It can't just be cost of living, as Harvard often times provides better stipends than even a school like Stanford, which is in an extremely expensive place to live.</p>
<p>As a Harvard Ph.D., I know that Harvard used to means-test its graduate students until very very recently. In fact, I know someone who came in for a Ph.D. at the age of 50+ and still had to fill out information regarding his parents' income! </p>
<p>The means test was abandoned when Harvard decided that some students were passed over despite better grades than others solely because they were not able to fund their own studies while lesser candidates were. This made for uneven cohorts of students, some of whom had to drop out for academic reasons and others for financial reasons, having overestimated their abilities to fund their studies over the long haul. And yes, Harvard was losing some top candidates to other institutions. There may be children of millionnaires and billionnaires among the graduate students now. But one can be fairly confident that they are at Harvard because of their academic qualifications, not their ability to pay.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: my studies were entirely paid for by fellowships.</p>
<p>sakky and marite: Harvard doesn't give a full scholarship to everyone for the Economics Ph.D. program .</p>
<p>If you guys were grad students, what was your field of study? And what phds have you earned?</p>
<p>When I was a grad student (in the Dark Ages), current policies did not apply. My Ph.D. was in the humanities.</p>
<p>The same policies apply for all students in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, for humanities and social sciences. They differ for students in the sciences who are usually supported by their advisors' research grants. In the humanities and social sciences, students get a full ride for the first two years; afterward, they are expected to support themselves through Teaching Fellowships unless they receive some merit award from the university or some outside fellowship such as a Fulbright. In the last year, they receive a dissertation completion award.</p>
<p>marite: I didn't know you were a H grad........but, boy what a difference in your postings vs Byerly's postings. One mature, full of thoughts, insight, wisdom and other childish.</p>
<p>My Harvard stipend offer (biological sciences) was the best I received; it was about $1000 more than Stanford and MIT and $3000 more than Berkeley. </p>
<p>That's not why I chose Harvard. But hey, I like money! :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
The means test was abandoned when Harvard decided that some students were passed over despite better grades than others solely because they were not able to fund their own studies while lesser candidates were. This made for uneven cohorts of students, some of whom had to drop out for academic reasons and others for financial reasons, having overestimated their abilities to fund their studies over the long haul. And yes, Harvard was losing some top candidates to other institutions. There may be children of millionnaires and billionnaires among the graduate students now. But one can be fairly confident that they are at Harvard because of their academic qualifications, not their ability to pay.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody is saying that these students are there because of their academic qualifications. But that's not the point. The point is, Harvard has a group of students who are provided with stipends regardless of their financial statuses, which is entirely different from what happens in the undergraduate program. In the undergraduate program, you get aid only if you and your family earns below a certain salary figure. In the doctoral programs, you get aid only based on how badly Harvard wants you. For example, there are doctoral students right now in Harvard Business School who are veritable millionaires (having been extremely successful in business) and now that they never have to worry about money for the rest of their lives, have decided to try to become academics. Nevertheless, HBS has provided them with a tuition waiver and stipend anyway. That's actually a rather standard procedure - I don't know a single HBS doctoral student who doesn't have a stipend. Hence, whether rich or poor, you're going to get a stipend. </p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky and marite: Harvard doesn't give a full scholarship to everyone for the Economics Ph.D. program .
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody is saying that these full scholarships are given to EVERYONE. That's not the point. The point is that these scholarships are not given out in the basis of financial need, but are generally given out on the basis of merit. That is an entirely different setup compared to the undergrad program. </p>
<p>The point is, the dichotomy seems quite arbitrary. People talk about how Harvard should not be doling out financial aid to students who don't need it. Yet that is happening right now to many of the graduate students, especially the doctoral students, as plenty of them are wealthy. People talk about how Harvard should charge for an education as it makes them appreciate the education. Yet,very few of Harvard's doctoral students are charged. If undergrads have to learn to appreciate an education by being charged for it, then why shouldn't doctoral students do the same? In other words, the difference in treatment seems quite arbitrary.</p>
<p>Does it matter what "people" say about what Harvard or any other school (Princeton is even more generous) should do? I have never bought the argument that students, whether graduates or undergraduates would appreciate their education more if they have to pay for it. I certainly appreciated mine! What matters is what universities think THEY should do to attract the best students.</p>
<p>I'm surprised to hear about fellowships at HBS. I thought these were practically non-existent at the professional schools, and not just at Harvard.
I believe that GSAS has about half the number of students as the College, which makes financial considerations different from that of the College (every tub on its own bottom applies here).</p>
<p>The fact is that for many many years, GSAS tried the means test and became dissatisfied with it while the College seems not to have experienced such dissatisfaction with its admissions and financial aid policies. I wonder whether the 50+ years-old graduate student who repeatedly complained about having to fill in information about parental income finally wore down the GSAS financial aid office!
:)
The financial package provided to graduate students has raised the quality of the student cohorts admitted to the graduate school as neither the admissions committees nor admitted students have to consider the financial implications of their decisions; admissions committees can focus on the qualifications of the applicants and the latter can focus on the fit of the programs to which they are applying. </p>
<p>As far as I know, the full rides are available for only the first two years; afterwards, unlike at Princeton where the full rides are for five years, graduate students must sing for their supper, in other words, they must serve as TFs. It's not exactly a cushy life, especially since they must find housing in the tight Cambridge market and pay for it out of their earnings. I remember my own graduate student days even on full fellowship as decidedly non-luxurious.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>The point is, Harvard has a group of students who are provided with stipends regardless of their financial statuses, which is entirely different from what happens in the undergraduate program.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I don't think you've blown the lid off of any Great Harvard Scandal here. It's routine at most research universities for Ph.D. students to get non-need based support. It's usually at least partially earned by working as a teaching assistant or research assistant. I got such support when I was in grad school (not at Harvard). Most of the funding is derived from research grants and not the school's endowment. Harvard is just keeping up with these schools and competing to attract the best grad students. No big deal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm surprised to hear about fellowships at HBS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was referring specifically to the HBS doctoral programs. HBS actually says explicitly that ALL doctoral students will get a fellowship, no matter what your financial background is. That's right - ALL. In other words, if you've made multi-millions on Wall Street and now want to go back to HBS to get your doctorate at HBS because you want to be a prof (as I know one person has done), it doesn't matter, HBS is still going to give you the fellowship. Clearly, such a person doesn't "need" the fellowship, but he gets it anyway. </p>
<p>"All incoming students, regardless of need and background, are awarded a fellowship for tuition and health fees and a 12-month stipend for living expenses ($30,000 for 2005-06). "</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does it matter what "people" say about what Harvard or any other school (Princeton is even more generous) should do? I have never bought the argument that students, whether graduates or undergraduates would appreciate their education more if they have to pay for it. I certainly appreciated mine! What matters is what universities think THEY should do to attract the best students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, I'm not saying that I myself think that what others say is important. I am saying that this discussion board exists to explore ideas. Some people have asserted that education is better served when students have to pay for it. My response to that is, if that is really true, then why doesn't Harvard make those doctoral students who are rich pay for their education? </p>
<p>I am actually with you. I think it's really a matter of schools doing whatever they want to do to improve themselves. It really doesn't have that much to do with the students. Harvard is doing what it does to improve itself. Good for them. That's what Harvard should do. But we should acknowledge that this is what is happening. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The financial package provided to graduate students has raised the quality of the student cohorts admitted to the graduate school as neither the admissions committees nor admitted students have to consider the financial implications of their decisions; admissions committees can focus on the qualifications of the applicants and the latter can focus on the fit of the programs to which they are applying. </p>
<p>As far as I know, the full rides are available for only the first two years; afterwards, unlike at Princeton where the full rides are for five years, graduate students must sing for their supper, in other words, they must serve as TFs. It's not exactly a cushy life, especially since they must find housing in the tight Cambridge market and pay for it out of their earnings. I remember my own graduate student days even on full fellowship as decidedly non-luxurious.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can only speak authoritatively on HBS, as that is what I know best, and HBS is indisputably generous. </p>
<p>However, to the point of GSAS students singing for their supper, I still think it's a pretty good deal. After all, I'm sure that a lot of Harvard undergrads would love to be able to get TF positions that not only allowed them to waive tuition, but also gave them a stipend. Look at it this way. Like I said, a lot of doctoral students are quite wealthy and so don't really "need" a stipend. Given the choice between having to be a TA/RA for a stipend and simply paying out of pocket, many of them would simply choose to pay out of pocket. {Harvard then solves this problem by actually requiring doctoral students to teach as a condition of graduation, but this has nothing to do with the stipend itself}. The point is, Harvard doctoral students, whether they are rich or not, have the option to get their degree without ever paying a dime to Harvard. Harvard undergrads (except for those making less than 60k) do not have this option. </p>
<p>Is the doctoral student lifestyle non-luxurious? Of course. I never said it was. But it's better than the lifestyle of the typical undergrad, which is REALLY non-luxurious. At least the doctoral students have a stipend (whether as fellowship, or sung for). The undergrads don't even get that, AND they have to pay tuition. In other words, the doctoral students are making a low wage, but the undergrads are actually making a "negative wage". </p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think you've blown the lid off of any Great Harvard Scandal here. It's routine at most research universities for Ph.D. students to get non-need based support. It's usually at least partially earned by working as a teaching assistant or research assistant. I got such support when I was in grad school (not at Harvard). Most of the funding is derived from research grants and not the school's endowment. Harvard is just keeping up with these schools and competing to attract the best grad students. No big deal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody is saying that this is some huge scandal. I agree with you that this is a routine process at almost all schools.</p>
<p>But come on, coureur, you have to admit that it's a bit disingenuous to claim that the doctoral support comes from research grants, not from the endowment. That may be true at the most hyper-strict level, but the fact is, money is inherently fungible. To wit: if Harvard cut off support to its rich doctoral students and instead used that grant money to, say, build more research lab buildings, then Harvard would be able to use less of its endowment money on capital expenditures. So to say that the doctoral support comes from research grants is really just an accounting trick. At the end of the day, it's really just one big huge pot of money. Hence, all doctoral students are indirectly being supported by the endowment.</p>
<p>My point is that there is no philosophical reason as to why Harvard couldn't give more support, i.e. free tuition, to its undergrads, through its endowment. It is basically doing that right now for its doctoral students. It's really that Harvard just doesn't want to do that. That's the point I'm raising.</p>
<p>I'm guessing the return on investment for the B-school is better than anything the College could hope for.</p>