<p>Ok, if you havn't looked lately the Harvard endownment is now nearly 35 billion dollars, but yet they seem to think they can refuse to pay the way for their students. For the sake of proving my point lets assume that the average cost per person at harvard is 70,000 dollars a year. If harvard were to pay the way for all of their undergraduate students and graduate students they would have to cover some 16,750 people. So the amount of money that they would need to cover all of those people would be 16,750*70,000 which is 1172500000. Approximatly 1.2 billion dollars. Now lets say over the next year harvard makes a lousy return on their 35 billion dollars in the stock market. Say they make 10%. They would then be up 3.5 Billion dollars. If they decided to cover all the students they would be up 3.5-1.2 billion or 2.3 Billion dollars which would actually grow the endowment 6.5%. So my question would be WHY ARN"T THEY PAYING FOR THEIR STUDENTS!</p>
<p>because its just business, the more students they cut off the more money they have. They, like most colleges, want to have the greatest amount of funds available.</p>
<p>Also, endowments are tied up in restricted alumni funds, stocks, etc. -- there is rarely any liquid cash easily available for use. Furthermore, the figure you provide is the overall Harvard endowment. The Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) which oversees the College receives a portion of the overall University budget. In fact, FAS is projecting a budget deficit in the years to come!</p>
<p>Greatone1- it's silly to say that "the more students they cut off the more money they have." If their goal were to "cut students off," they wouldn't provide such generous financial aid.</p>
<p>If a college raises the tuition and raises the financial aid benefits at the same time (which Harvard, like many colleges, has consistently been doing) then they're effectively pushing more of the burden for paying for the college to upper income families.</p>
<p>But what xjayz said is most important.</p>
<p>The thing that all of you guys are not seeing is the size of other ivy's that provide similar financial aid to harvard. go look at this page to se what I mean. </p>
<p>How do colleges with half the endowment of harvard provide so much aid also. Wouldn't it be a huge disadvantage to have 15 billion dollars less. I really wonder what the mission is of these super size endowments that seem to be growing like very good performing investments saving for retirement. But when do they plan to dish out some of their Endowment. In ten years from now it will probably be worth a 100 billion. What will you guys say when that happens.</p>
<p>Hi jclay2,</p>
<p>For starters, I actually do believe that it would be a good idea to expand Harvard's financial aid further. I should have mentioned that above. Eliminating tuition might not be the right answer- it might be a better idea just to expand HFAI to apply to middle class families as well. (Ensuring that multimillionaires can send their children to Harvard for free isn't necessarily worth the money it would cost).</p>
<p>But your post still doesn't appreciate the situation. Harvard isn't about to "dish out" their endowment. First remember the factors that xjayz mentioned- much of it is in the stock market or bonds or such, and the college only gets a certain allotment of the endowment (don't forget that the university is far bigger than the college-).</p>
<p>But suppose that the university is left with some amount of "disposable" money that they could theoretically use for eliminating tuition (which, as you figure, is somewhere around $1 billion). Are you sure that this is the best way to use it?</p>
<p>The administration at Harvard thinks primarily in the long term (it's a reasonable perspective- they've been around for almost four hundred years, and it's a good bet they'll be around for a while longer). If Harvard builds a new science research center (as they are currently starting in Allston, across the river), it will be around (barring natural disaster) for centuries, returning further benefits every year- it will further scientific research, it will provide positions for professors that can teach undergraduates, it will give more opportunities for undergraduate research...</p>
<p>It doesn't have to be a science research center, either. It could just be new libraries for undergraduates. or higher quality professors to teach them, or any of a thousand things that will help them. The money that you think should be used to eliminate tuition isn't being squandered, or greedily hoarded. It's being used in other ways to help the university and its undergraduates. It's possible that getting rid of tuition is a better cause than these other plans, but you don't even consider the options for spending the money or compare your proposed goal to building new libraries or adding professor positions. You just state that because it might be affordable, Harvard should do it.</p>
<p>Admiral I really like your post. In fact, it has convinced me to change my position. Instead of saying paying tuition for all the students, they should spend the money more wisely. The size and growth of their endowment though do make me wonder how much they are just holding on to their money rather than putting it to good use. Considering the rapid growth it has had, I would think that they are not putting enough money to good use.</p>
<p>I'm glad you liked my post, jclay!</p>
<p>How Harvard spends its (considerable) endowment is certainly a matter of debate here on campus. There's a good deal of controversy surrounding Harvard's push to expand into Allston, across the river. See here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.allston.harvard.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.allston.harvard.edu/</a></p>
<p>Some people say it's a waste of money, some think that it's a bad idea to put a science research center so far from the rest of the science graduate schools, and such.</p>
<p>I honestly do not have a very strong opinion since I don't believe I'm well informed enough on these issues- I haven't looked at the pros and cons of the Harvard budget nearly as much as the administration has. I would note that it might be a little rash to assume that because Harvard's endowment keeps growing, it should be spending more. Since the school's money grows with interest, saving money could lead to larger benefits in the future. (Of course, I'm personally biased towards spending money now, simply because I'm a student here and would like to reap the benefits of any spending!)</p>
<p>One group I do oppose is people that suggest the excess in the endowment should be used to raise wages of Harvard employees, for the sake of raising their wages (please don't judge me on this until you've heard me out). Last spring there was some controversy about groups that were protesting the wage of Harvard security guards. Many protestors held up signs mocking Harvard's multibillion dollar endowment, and implied that since Harvard could afford to pay workers more than $12 an hour, they should.</p>
<p>This bothered me for reasons similar to what I outlined above. Harvard should have a goal in the way it uses its funds- it should aim to educate its students and to contribute to academia through research. Both are very worthy goals- it's debatable whether Harvard, or American colleges in general, focus too much on the former or the latter. However, one goal that I don't think Harvard should be focusing on as an end in itself is to pay its employees more.</p>
<p>The reason Harvard should hire security guards is to keep Harvard students, faculty, and property safe, and obviously it's absolutely necessary. Harvard doesn't hire security guards in order to pay security guards. Harvard is an educational and research institution- it's not a mechanism of redistribution (if it did want to be a mechanism of redistribution, there are far better ways it could redistribute to help the poor than paying security guards more).</p>
<p>You might say I'm getting off topic (and I am, I suppose- both the Allston development and the security guard protests are worth their own threads), but my point is that when critics attack the Harvard administration for their spending, they rarely consider what the overall goals of the institution are or should be.</p>
<p>An interesting article in The Crimson on the topic:</p>
<p>"Why Can't Havard Be Free?"</p>
<p>If you look at endowment per student, Harvard is eclipsed by Yale & Princeton. Plus, it costs a lot more than $70,000 per year to educate each student.</p>
<p>He's back - I was wondering how long it would be before PosterX added his usual pointless remarks. This thread is about Harvard not Yale or Princeton. Stick to your own threads troll!</p>
<p>I would agree that Liquidity and Harvard College's access to funds are the major problems. But I still think the strongest motivation is to hold on to their number one spot in total funds for an academic institution. Alot of people, especially Americans, see money as a sign of success, dominance, power, and harvard wants to stay in its current position for centuries to come.</p>
<p>I think Harvard has other higher priority projects to spend their funds on. How does free tuition for all students benefit the university? They already have the best and brightest students.</p>
<p>If Harvard chooses to charge students, it's reasonable given its generous financial aid. Even Cooper Union charges for room and board, and Deep Springs students have to work for their keep.</p>
<p>Perhaps a better question would be why Harvard (or Yale) hasn't eliminated all loans, although Princeton, Amherst, and Davidson have done so.</p>
<p>I think that there are good arguments to be made for eliminating tuition altogether - though I'm not sure if right now is the best time to make Harvard free. Eliminating tuition would equalize the playing field in many ways for applicants and also improve campus climate. Though many, including Harvard, will say that the generous financial aid budget makes it possible for anybody to go to Harvard, this is not always the case. Many people are scared to even apply because of the daunting price tag, and even with financial aid, many families find it extremely difficult to finance a Harvard education. But this is actually only a tiny reason why I think that elimination of tuition is worth considering.</p>
<p>I am of the opinion that eliminating tuition would increase feelings of equality on campus. Some argue that there is a divide on campus (any college campus) between those on financial aid and those whose parents can afford tuition. Eliminating tuition would eliminate such a divide and have a great positive impact upon actual campus equality and also both outsiders and insiders perceptions thereof. Perceptions are important because they determine who applies, so if Harvard is perceived as more diverse and more equal, it will generate a more diverse applicant pool and thus, the perception will propagate the reality. </p>
<p>If no Harvard student paid any tuition, socioeconomic diversity on campus no longer even becomes a problem that needs to be addressed. Harvard would be the first school in the nation (aside from a few smaller specialized focus schools which are already free) where this could truly be said. Eliminating tuition isn't about making Harvard cheaper, its about changing its outsider perceptions of accessibility. A free Harvard would be as close as possible to a meritocracy as any school could get.</p>
<p>Of all of the schools in the country, Harvard is the closest to being able to afford eliminating tuition, though I don't think that Harvard is in the position to do it now, but maybe after a few more years of growth in the endowment. Eliminating tuition would for the most part not have any very large impact directly visible on campus, but, it would be of big symbolic significance and represent an increasing equality in higher education. Sometimes symbols are very important also, though we may not directly and immediately feel their effects.</p>
<p>Another thing to consider is financial aid for graduate and professional schools - an area for which minimal to no financial aid is provided. In her speech this past Friday, Harvard's new president, Drew Faust, alluded to making graduate and professional education more financially accessible, though she did not lay out any specific plans. I think that providing financial aid for graduate and professional education is the next step and am interested to see what President Faust does in this regard.</p>
<p>transferapp - You make some solid points, but <em>practically</em> I think eliminating tuition would <em>increase</em> socioeconomic stratification, rather than decrease it. For the HFAI nothing (or little) would change. But for those in the top income decile who receive no financial aid, the change is a $40k/year windfall. I'm sure some of that money would make its way into the student's hands, to be spent on lavish intersession vacations, weekends at Foxwoods, etc. </p>
<p>I disagree with your assertion that there's a stigma regarding being on financial aid that would disappear if Harvard were free. With > 50% of the student body receiving aid, perhaps not being on financial aid is more likely to have a stigma attached.</p>
<p>Interesting string. From my seat it certainly looks like Harvard could spend more of its' endowment to make attending Harvard as an undergrad more affortable ... however I can't say I'm a fan of the free tuition idea. Eliminating tuition increases the money spent from the endowment on undergrads (good in my opinion) but does it evenly across all students ... so the poor kid from Harlem and Bill Gates' kid both get free tuition. I guess this is a "fair" system and Bill Gates' probably would rather not pay but I'm not sold this is the best utilization of the extra money allocated to help undergrads. </p>
<p>Personally, I'd like to see the schools with huge endowments increase the amount of financial aid. So given this proposal I'd take all the dollars that were proposed to be used for free tuition and instead apply it to financical aid. In essence Harvard is in position to have a Harvard EFC which is substantially lower than other schools. This approach won't help Bill Gates one bit (and to me that is a good thing) but it will increases the help to the poor kid from Harlem and lots of middle class families.</p>
<p>I think 3togo's points are good, but too idealistic. Harvard has no incentive to increase the amount of financial aid if the consumers (i.e., the families of students) are still willing to pay the termbill. Remember Harvard's situation -- FAS, the division under which the College exists, has absolutely no money to increase financial aid. The recent HFAI expansion (from $40k to $60k) is covered by the central administration. </p>
<p>Fortunately, Harvard already does have a low EFC compared to other schools. I think another perception that needs to be challenged on campus is that a $100k income is considered "middle-income." Harvard's undergraduate student body, as a whole, is extremely wealthy (the average income of families here stands around $80-90k a year). When the median income of the U.S. is $45,000, I would think $100k is extremely wealthy.</p>