<p>
[quote]
"Who owns Harvard? Who gets the profit?"</p>
<p>The professors make the profit, and essentially the "President and Fellows of Harvard College (also known as the Harvard Corporation)" and the "Harvard Board of Overseers" essentially own Harvard.</p>
<p>homeless shelter volunteers do not profit from volunteering, priests and deacons do not receive salaries so much as what is barely necessary to survive. Soup kitchen volunteers do not profit from volunteering. Professors make a lot more than they need to survive- they are not volunteers. Professors and the president and the boards of directors are the ones receiving pay raises and the benefits reaped from profits. </p>
<p>Making money and profiting are not the same thing. A profit is a significant NET GAIN, whereas the bodies you mentioned make little to no net gain.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, the professors and the "President and Fellows of Harvard College (also known as the Harvard Corporation)" and the "Harvard Board of Overseers" do NOT "own" Harvard. Nobody owns Harvard in the sense that a business owner actually owns the business. To be an "owner" means that you hold the rights to the residual claims and you hold the rights to any other uses of the organization's assets that have not heretofor been assigned. The owners, meaning the residual claimants, of Walmart are the Walmart shareholders. If the shareholders of Walmart decided, right now, to liquidate the company, sell off all of the company's assets, and divvy up all the proceeds to the shareholders (after paying all the outstanding debts), they could do so. It wouldn't be smart business, but they could do it. Or if they just wanted to take Walmart's total cash reserves and decide to return all of it to the shareholders in the form of a special dividend, they could do it, subject to whatever debt covenants they might have (which might mean first retiring certain debt obligations before they paid that special dividend). On the other hand, can the Harvard profs, overseers, and members of the Harvard Corporation just "decide" one day to liquidate all of Harvard's assets and then divide all the proceeds among themselves? I don't think so. Can they simply take Harvard's $30 billion endowment and decide to divide it all among themselves as a special dividend? Again, I don't think so. No NGO can do that. The Board of Directors for the Red Cross can't just simply decide to take all of the Red Cross's cash and give it all to themselves. </p>
<p>Hence, the point is, there are no owners of any university, because there are no residual claimants, and no identifiable party has the "right" to any of the uncontracted assets.</p>
<p>"Profit is what is left over after the bills are paid"
And it is also what contributes to a rise in paycheck and bonuses. Both of which professors and people like Lawrence Summers (post #16)</p>
<p>If Bill Gates left the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, he wouldn't receive a golden parachute like Lawrence Summers received. </p>
<p>I will concede that colleges are not conventional businesses. However, I still contend that they behave like businesses. </p>
<p>Regardless, semantics wasn't really the point of my post, my intent was to analyze how the status quo can be improved, not to analyze the minutia of how a university operates. Whether their money goes to expanding their library or expanding the research facilities, at the end of the day, they are still making money through the donations that their investments attract.</p>
<p>It's not conventional money making, but theirs more than one way for an organization to become rich in America.</p>
<p>But back to the point. I started this topic to hear solutions to the problem, so I'd appreciate if people could propose some ideas.</p>
<p>Point taken, I should have done my research better there. You're right, nobody owns Harvard, but there are still people who profit from it nonetheless. Again, it is not a conventional business, but I still believe that colleges behave like businesses. </p>
<p>brassmonkey- I might be completely off, because I'm not sure who you are addressing. But if I did so, I never meant to imply that I think that donations are bad for the general welfare. The point of this post was to EXPLORE how to remedy the status quo so that the negative aspect of donations (kids getting in solely on the basis of donations) is less detrimental and does not preclude admission to vaunted colleges for some college hopefuls.</p>
<p>And please, I don't want this topic to become a debate so much as exploring solutions. I'd REALLY like to hear some suggestions about improving the caliber and prestige (because that's important too) of public universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, as we all know, legality and truth are not necessarily synonymous. I contend that universities are legally nonprofit but in reality are making a profit (see previous post) based on the services they provide. The profit is made from donations which should be tax deductible. </p>
<p>Just because universities are treated as non profit does not mean they do not behave like businesses. Maybe the problem is the treatment of schools, not the nature of schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, actually it basically does mean that they will not behave like businesses. If nothing else, they have to at least * appear * to be serving society in order to justify their tax treatment. You can quibble about whether this is just an illusion, but at the very least, you have to agree that they have to put on that illusion. Private businesses don't even have to bother with the illusion. </p>
<p>
[quote]
" Harvard University gave then-president Lawrence Summers a severance package valued at about $2 million when he surrendered the office last year.</p>
<p>The Ivy League school also paid $55.2 million in fiscal 2006 to the investment firm run by former endowment manager Jack Meyer, according to Internal Revenue Service documents released today. His Convexity Capital Management LP oversees bond portfolios for Harvard, the world's richest university with a $29.2 billion endowment."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't find that to be particularly notable. In fact, frankly, it's probably a little low. The top management of manymajor NGO's do very very well for themselves. For example, Jack Valenti, former President of the Motion Picture Association of America, received an $11 million package in 2004 ($2.4 million of it being salary), yet the MPAA is an NGO. Thomas Donahue of the Chamber of Commerce (another NGO) received almost $7 million in total compensation. Heck, even Gene Upshaw, head of the NFL Player's Association (the NFL player's union) received $2.3 million - and that's for heading a * labor union*. That Larry Summers received $2 million is, frankly, surprisingly low when put in perspective. </p>
<p>I think you guys are overlooking the point he's trying to make and just focusing on irrelevant details. His point is: stop complaining about unfair college admissions and focus more at revamping the public K-12 education system; the colleges don't owe you anything.</p>
<p>The magnitude of the severance package wasn't the point of the post so much as the very fact that it exists.</p>
<p>"You can quibble about whether this is just an illusion, but at the very least, you have to agree that they have to put on that illusion. Private businesses don't even have to bother with the illusion."</p>
<p>Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, I do agree that the illusion is put on. I believe that the illusion is false and misleading, but I believe that it is there. </p>
<p>** But on the point of quibbling, I'd like to get out of this rut and talk about solutions, not definitions. </p>
<p>I'd like to hear people's opinions on what should be done, if anything. **</p>
<p>Edit: Tyler09 just put it more clearly than I can ever hope to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Point taken, I should have done my research better there. You're right, nobody owns Harvard, but there are still people who profit from it nonetheless. Again, it is not a conventional business, but I still believe that colleges behave like businesses.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I still think your complaints are unfair. Sure, you could say that some people profit from Harvard, in the sense that some people profit from ANY NGO. For example, all of the paid staffers at the Red Cross are basically "benefitting" from the existence in the sense that they have a paying job. And clearly, Jack Valenti benefitted a great deal from the MPAA, as seen in my post above. I don't see that Harvard, or any other university, is any worse in that regard. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Regardless, semantics wasn't really the point of my post, my intent was to analyze how the status quo can be improved, not to analyze the minutia of how a university operates. Whether their money goes to expanding their library or expanding the research facilities, at the end of the day, they are still making money through the donations that their investments attract.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, the same can be said to be true of any NGO's that have large funds. For example, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Lily Endowment, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - all of these are NGO's that also could be said to 'make money' through donations that their investments attract. It's no different.</p>
<p>Sakky I understand your points, but again, that argument is really for another day, I probably shouldn't have taken up the argument and let the topic get sidetracked. I'd like to talk about what can be done as far as improvements now pursuant to what I said it posts #1 and #26</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think you guys are overlooking the point he's trying to make and just focusing on irrelevant details
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think these are irrelevant details. It's important to make a strong distinction between a true business and a university. Moreover, it is also important not to unfairly single out universities for following fairly standard procedure that many other NGO's follow.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But on the point of quibbling, I'd like to get out of this rut and talk about solutions, not definitions. </p>
<p>I'd like to hear people's opinions on what should be done, if anything.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nevertheless, if you want to hear about solutions, we can talk about them. First off, I am quite convinced that anybody with even a modicum of work ethic and intelligence who wants to get into a college of some sort, they can do so. It may not be the best college, but it will still be a college of some sort. </p>
<p>It is of course true that nobody has the "right" to go to Harvard. But that's similar to the notion that no charitable project has the "right" to receive funding from the Gates Foundation, or any other foundation for that matter. If you have a charitable project that you think deserves funding, you have to submit grant applications to the foundations to justify why you think you deserve funding, and you may or may not get it. </p>
<p>Other than fixing K-12, which I think we can all agree would be a great thing, the biggest problem I can see is the simple availability of funds for those who aren't rich. I strongly suspect that a voucher system would work out quite nicely - that every poor high school graduate ought to receive a voucher to attend ANY school in the country that will admit him, or at least (if it comes from the state govt), any school in the state.</p>
<p>"Other than fixing K-12, which I think we can all agree would be a great thing, the biggest problem I can see is the simple availability of funds for those who aren't rich. I strongly suspect that a voucher system would work out quite nicely - that every poor high school graduate ought to receive a voucher to attend ANY school in the country that will admit him, or at least (if it comes from the state govt), any school in the state."</p>
<p>A good idea, but the problem I'm focusing on is getting into attractive colleges. The problem is that the more attractive schools are generally private institutions where massive bribe donations can take effect. In public universities this is not really an issue, but then again generally the public universities are not as prestigious.</p>
<p>That's why I proposed improving public universities further so that they may one day become the equivalent of top tier universities in terms of staff, prestige, education, resources, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's why I proposed improving public universities further so that they may one day become the equivalent of top tier universities in terms of staff, prestige, education, resources, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The difference between the top publics (Berkely, Michigan, Virginia) and the top privates (HYPS) really isn't that large. I think people would be thinking back to the USNews report if they're concerned that top publics are far behind top privates - in actuality, these schools as a whole (especially Berkeley and Michigan, which have great undergrad as well as fantastic grad programs) are every bit on par with some of the top privates. Of course Harvard stands above, but it is also one of the oldest colleges in the country and has had time and a name to build up a massive endowment. Top publics (again, Michigan in particular) are constantly increasing their endowments and offerings.</p>
<p>Asking for more precision in writing and thought isn't "quibbling." Specificity and clear definitions, grounded in reason, are crucial to making an argument and are exactly what would be expected in a college class and in many professional settings. </p>
<p>"Behaving like a business" turns out to mean practically nothing, at least so far as concerns how businesses behave.</p>
<p>By the way, public universities have endowments and pay professors more than what is required to live if one were poor and most certainly pay their presidents quite a lot (often including golden parachutes). According to the line of argument of the OP, that means that they "behave like businesses," thus completely undermining the proposed policy rationale for further subidizing public universities.</p>
<p>The one thing michigan, berkeley, and other public universities can't improve is their selectivity. Their student bodies are just too large--around 20 times as large as an ivy or more. (Selectivity is dropping across the board, but their is no way for michigan/berkeley to catch harvard.)</p>
<p>The education, endowment, and faculty level is about the same between berkeley and most of the top privates. (Harvard still has a mammoth endowment which dwarfs all other privates as well as the publics.)</p>
<p>By the way, OP, what exactly do you think needs to be improved in the top public universities? What's the SPECIFIC problem (or problems) that need to be solved?</p>
<p>
[quote]
the problem I'm focusing on is getting into attractive colleges. The problem is that the more attractive schools are generally private institutions where massive bribe donations can take effect.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm a little confused about what exactly you're trying to fix. You obviously don't seem to think public universities are the ones affected by development cases, AA, etc. So we're talking about the no-sum, extremely selective and subjective admissions to private institutions like Harvard then?</p>
<p>There are many, many great public institutions out there whose admission depends almost exclusively on GPA or SAT scores. Some examples include the university systems of California, Texas, and Florida that guarantee higher ranked individuals spots in one of their colleges. brand_182 makes an excellent point regarding this.</p>
<p>I'd like to hear what exactly you're arguing for - a solution to what? Improving education (which was what I'm getting from your original post), or what to do with selective admissions (see above quote)?</p>
<p>
[quote]
the professors and the "President and Fellows of Harvard College (also known as the Harvard Corporation)" and the "Harvard Board of Overseers" do NOT "own" Harvard. Nobody owns Harvard in the sense that a business owner actually owns the business.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>De facto it's been a business since at least the Neil Rudenstine era. By that time if not earlier, at Harvard and all its (private) rivals, university presidents were primarily fundraisers and were hired and fired on that basis. Neil R was a money machine. Larry Summers was if anything an exception to this pattern, which is interesting given his economics background and later employment at a hedge fund. However, that may be a matter of more staff being hired just below the level of president (provost etc) and a greater delegation and professionalization of the fundraising.</p>
<p>The top 10 universities collectively and permanently sequester on the order of 100 billion dollars away from the reach of US taxes, and control large tracts of pricey real estate. Where does this idea come from that "colleges don't owe you anything"?</p>