<p>I am of a contrary mind. And as someone who occasionally does a bit of soliciting, I can tell you that there are far more people who share my views than yours in re financial aid for the offspring of billionaires!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, you refuse to acknowledge that the $26 billion is not available to ALL of Harvard equally; and that what it MAY be able to do in the FUTURE, it CANNOT DO RIGHT NOW.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course I acknowledge that the endowment isn't split equally. I have also always agreed that any changes that it may want to perform will take years, if not decades to achieve.</p>
<p>But that's not the point. The point is, these changes COULD be made if Harvard wanted to make them. I think that is something that you should have gathered from my posts. Furthermore, if Harvard had started these changes decades ago, then Harvard might currently be exactly what I have said it could be. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You keep on writing CAN not WILL BE ABLE to. There's a difference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, what exactly is the difference between what CAN be achieved vs. what IS ABLE to be achieved? Seems to me that that is exactly the same thing. </p>
<p>Look, I've said it before, I'll say it again. I don't know if Harvard should do these changes, and even if they do, I realize it would take years to complete. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Harvard COULD change itself. Specifically, Harvard has the power to question the basic assumptions of how it runs itself. You act as if Harvard is somehow a prisoner of its own rules, and it is not. Things can be changed if Harvard wants them to be changed. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Few graduates, including me, would ever give another nickel if Harvard started using our contributions to give "free" education to the offspring of billionaires.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know of at least one billlionnaire's kid who applied and asked for funding. And why not? The money belonged to the parents, not the kid.
Personally, I would not be upset if my contributions went to funding a billionnaire's kid or two. I doubt many go to grad school. And one can make the argument that they (or their grateful parents) would contribute to cash-poor GSAS. In fact, I see it as a more likely scenario than expecting HLS or HBS to share their wealth with GSAS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So that we can stop talking about abstractions, let me give you a specific example.</p>
<p>Take the case of Thomas Eisenmann, now currently Professor of Entrepreneurial Management at HBS. He got his doctorate at HBS in 1998. Before that, he worked for over a decade at McKinsey, becoming head of McKinsey's Media/Entertainment Practice. </p>
<p>But when he decided to go to HBS for his doctorate, he got full funding, just like every other HBS doctoral student. As head of a practice at McKinsey, you KNOW that he had plenty of money. True, he wasn't a billionaire, but it was his money. So he could have easily afforded to pay his way for his doctorate. But nope, HBS gave him funding anyway. Furthermore, HBS continues to hound all its alumni for more and more donations. So some of the alumni donors are going to support rich guys like that. </p>
<p>There are also other doctoral students at HBS I know who came from rather illustrious careers in investment banking or hedge funds and so they have plenty of cash. Like I said, you should see the cars some of these guys drive. But HBS freely hands out stipends to them anyway.</p>
<p>My point is, if HBS can do it, the other Harvard schools can do it too. Would it take a long time to do? Of course. Should those other schools do it? I don't know. But that's not my point. My point is, they could do it, given enough willpower and enough time.</p>
<p>Sakky:<br>
In my book, there is not a single "Harvard." It's cash poor GSD, GSAS, HGSE, HDS and cash-rich HMS, HBS, HLS and the College. And you don't seem to know the difference between "Can" and "may be able to, in the future."</p>
<p>I know of some donors who have set conditions so tight that their money cannot be moved around even within single departments, let alone within FAS or within "Harvard." The conditions are such that even the rank at which a position can be filled or the countries a student can travel to are extremely circumscribed. Fungible? Donors don't like fungible.</p>
<p>But if you want to continue to hold on to your views, be my guest. I'm done arguing with you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And you don't seem to know the difference between "Can" and "may be able to, in the future."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because, again, there is no difference, effectively speaking. Harvard CAN do it. Harvard MAY be able to do it in the future. In the context of this thread, they are effectively the same thing. </p>
<p>Besides, I don't know that "cash-poor-ness" has necessarily anything to do with it. I know a guy who did a stint and lucrative stint in investment banking. He then decided to get his PhD in Economics at Harvard. The department gave him a full fellowship. Because of his banking years, he clearly had the money to pay for everything himself. Heck, he was telling me that if he hadn't gotten in, he probably would have gone to B-school instead and paid for it all in cash. Yet, the Harvard econ department gave him a full stipend anyway.</p>
<p>That's my original point. It's not really about who has money and who doesn't have money. It's about who GETS whatever money there is. And the fact is, right now, Harvard currently gives quite a bit of money to some students who are already quite rich. Not every Harvard doctoral student is poor, eating Raman. Some are quite rich, including some at the 'poor' Harvard schools. In fact, I believe this guy bought a condo to live in while completing his PhD, and then he sold it for a profit after he graduated. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I know of some donors who have set conditions so tight that their money cannot be moved around even within single departments, let alone within FAS or within "Harvard." The conditions are such that even the rank at which a position can be filled or the countries a student can travel to are extremely circumscribed. Fungible? Donors don't like fungible.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, the key word there is "Some". Other donors just give, with few if any strings attached. Hence, fungibility. </p>
<p>Look, I think you are taking a rather radical position. You are either saying that Harvard can never change, or that none of Harvard's funding is fungible. Neither is a particularly defensible position.</p>
<p>Your thesis doesn't really hold water, sakky. </p>
<p>Just ask Princeton about the Robertson family or Yale about the Bass family. </p>
<p>A school is pretty tightly circumscribed when it considers taking money given for one purpose and spending it for another. Very few large contributions come with no strings attached.</p>
<p>No, once again, I disagree. I have always agreed that some donations are circumscribed. But not as much as y'all are implying. </p>
<p>After all, most donors to Harvard (or any other school) are not major donors. The vast majority of donors to any school are relatively small donors - i.e. no more than 5 figures. In fact, most donors that I know give no more than a few thousand a year. Donors of this type clearly don't have the power to dictate where there money is going. Most of those donations get rolled up into a general fund to be disbursed as the school in question wishes. </p>
<p>Besides, I think all of you are overlooking the power of marketing. If Harvard is really good at anything, it's at marketing itself. Hence, I have to imagine that if Harvard put its marketing muscle behind some new donor initiative, then it would probably get a lot of money for that initiative. For example, like I said, if Harvard decided that they want to start a new fund that guarantees funding for every one of its doctoral students and really puts its marketing muscle behind the fund in marketing it to rich alumni, I think it would be able to get quite a substantial number of donations for this new fund. </p>
<p>It's no different from what all companies do today. For example, when Apple came out with its first Ipod version, Apple pushed it with all of its marketing muscle. But then when Apple came out with new versions of the Apple, like the nano, Apple started to de-emphasize the marketing of its older Ipods in favor of the new versions. In that way, Apple can steer customer demand to its newer products. Every company does this. The more you market something, the more you sell of that thing. </p>
<p>You can't seriously argue that Harvard can't do the same. If Harvard wanted to heavily market some new donor initiative, you know that it could. Whether it WANTS to do it is a different question, but the point is, it could. </p>
<p>The point is, I think you guys are seriously seriously understimating just how much power Harvard (or any other school) really has its ability to shift funds as necessary and how it can shift donation money around. If companies can shift customer demand around through savvy marketing, then you know that Harvard can shift donation money around through savvy marketing.</p>
<p>You are wrong, but there is no point arguing with you further. I give up.</p>
<p>I am sorry, but I believe you are wrong. </p>
<p>And even if I am wrong, hey, we all have the right to our opinions, and we have the right to post them. I will leave it up to the readers to make up their minds about who they believe.</p>
<p>Haha, Sakky, as Byerly implies, what you are saying is ludicrous.</p>
<p>Harvard is many things, but unethical it is not. Organizations cannot just "shift money around" when donations are designated. Harvard and all aspects of its finances are scrutinized constantly. </p>
<p>Yes, we all have the right to our own opinions, but when fact stands counter to your opinion, you should just accept that some opinions are just wrong.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>hey, we all have the right to our opinions<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Sure, we each have a right to our own opinions, but we do not have a right to our own facts. Your original premise on this thread was wrong from the outset, and you have been desperately blowing a lot of smoke ever since.</p>
<p>After reading all the posts in this thread, I think sakky made me change my mind. I totally agree with sakky now. If there is any university that can give full ride to undergrads, like Cooper Union does, it IS Harvard. Harvard's 26 Billion dollar endowment has to restricted in some form partially, but the bigger part of it can be used to fund ugrad and grad students. The example of HBS doctoral programs is an excellent one. </p>
<p>I have to admit that Harvard CAN provide much more support to its students, it simply has chosen not to do so. And herein lies the mystery. Why? Why has it decided to do it?</p>
<p>The following four editorials appeared in The Crimson in the spring as part of a focus on financial aid, and in particular, HFAI. Some parts address issues discussed here.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512554%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512554</a>
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512552%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512552</a>
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512551%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512551</a>
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512550%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512550</a></p>
<p>To summarize some of what has been said before, my family could afford (just barely) to pay Harvard's prices, and I was getting much more than I paid for in terms of services and resources. Why should I have been given everything for free? Why does Harvard owe me all kinds of luxuries I'm able to pay for?</p>
<p>My father has often said of the tuition he paid, "It would be a bargain at twice the price." Taking money away from ANY university program to give a refund to a satisfied full-price customer like my dad is economic madness, not to mention (IMHO) totally out of whack with what the university's priorities ought to be. I could name a hundred Harvard programs I'd like to see funded better before any money goes back to families like mine.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard is many things, but unethical it is not. Organizations cannot just "shift money around" when donations are designated. Harvard and all aspects of its finances are scrutinized constantly. </p>
<p>Yes, we all have the right to our own opinions, but when fact stands counter to your opinion, you should just accept that some opinions are just wrong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nope, I disagree, the facts DO NOT stand counter to my opinion. </p>
<p>Case in point. I know a friend who is an alumni who gave money to Harvard. In his case, he wasn't a big donor. And he was not aware of any conditions placed on the money he gave. As far as he knows, Harvard is free to do whatever it wants with his money.</p>
<p>But more importantly, Harvard can simply say start soliciting money for a general fund to do with as they wish. Obviously not everybody would donate to such a fund, but some people would. And then Harvard would be able to use this fund to do whatever they want.</p>
<p>The point is, Harvard has the POWER to shift some money around. I never said they had the power to shift ALL money around. But y'all seem to be taking the position that Harvard never has the power to shift anything around, and THAT is wrong. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure, we each have a right to our own opinions, but we do not have a right to our own facts. Your original premise on this thread was wrong from the outset, and you have been desperately blowing a lot of smoke ever since.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sorry, but I think that your position that Harvard can never shift any money around at all, or that no such general fund exists at all - now THAT is way off base. </p>
<p>The point is, if you think that Harvard truly has no donor money with which it is free to do as it wishes, you are wrong. I am an alumni of 2 universities so far, and have given money to both, with no conditions of which I am aware of. If those schools want to use the money I donated to contribute to making undergraduate tuition free, or to throw a beer party for everybody, or to just throw a big bonfire burning dollar bills, I can't stop them. I don't think any of the donors can.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To summarize some of what has been said before, my family could afford (just barely) to pay Harvard's prices, and I was getting much more than I paid for in terms of services and resources. Why should I have been given everything for free? Why does Harvard owe me all kinds of luxuries I'm able to pay for?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And like I said before, why is it that certain doctoral students, who are veritable millionaires, deserving to get everything not only for free, but actually getting paid a stipend? Why? I would like to hear a good explanation for that.</p>
<p>sakky-- your friend may not know where the money is going, but if he wants, he can specify it. donors are encouraged to designate funds, and if they do so, then harvard will put that money toward whatever particular cause they've specified. many donors specify their gifts to hfai. </p>
<p>and as for phd students getting stipends, i would suspect it's because they're working for harvard as teaching fellows, assisting professors in research, and aiding undergraduates as tutors, etc. it's not so cushy as you'd like to think. there is your good explanation.</p>
<p>good luck with your other conspiracy theories. it's sort of funny, this thread, sakky, because there is A LOT wrong with harvard. just not this.</p>
<p>Did I say I was pointing out that what Harvard was doing was "wrong"? Please point to my quote where I specifically said that it was wrong.</p>
<p>I am simply saying that some Harvard doctoral students, who are quite wealthy, are nevertheless, getting stipends. I never said this was wrong. I am simply putting it out there as a fact. And it's not a simple matter of serving as teaching fellows or research fellows. Some of them get that money as straight fellowships - which means that they have to do nothing at all. Trust me, I know. </p>
<p>I agree that donors can specify where they want their funds to go. But the point is, many others do not. </p>
<p>The point is, Harvard, like every school, has a lot of freedom about where it wants to spend its donor money. I have always agreed that it doesn't have complete 100% freedom. I never said otherwise. But come on guys, I think you have to concede that it has more than 0% freedom. You know and I know that Harvard has room to maneuver. To say that every single donation dollar that Harvard has ever obtained has been pledged for something - that is simply a false statement, and y'all know it.</p>
<p>because Harvard's full of greedy dbags, of course</p>
<p>Sakky if your big "point" is that Harvard COULD make undergraduate education free, then your long-winded responses here are alarmingly asinine. And come on, PhD students are not the millionaires you make them out to be.</p>