Not sure I see the logic here:
"Don't the tax payers fund private colleges by giving tax exempt status? Shouldn't we the tax payers have a say on them?"
Many thousands of organizations don't pay taxes. As a condition, the government insists that the organization be involved in some type of non-profit, socially useful activity (charity, education, whatever). Sometimes the government is skeptical, and checks out the organization to be sure it satisfies whatever test applies. There can't be any serious dispute that Harvard does.
But that doesn't entitle the government to decide whom the organization may invite to its annual dinner, or whom it may hire, or whom it may admit.
"Don't the tax payers fund private colleges by giving tax exempt status? Shouldn't we the tax payers have a say on them?"
Many thousands of organizations don't pay taxes. As a condition, the government insists that the organization be involved in some type of non-profit, socially useful activity (charity, education, whatever). Sometimes the government is skeptical, and checks out the organization to be sure it satisfies whatever test applies. There can't be any serious dispute that Harvard does.
But that doesn't entitle the government to decide whom the organization may invite to its annual dinner, or whom it may hire, or whom it may admit.
3
"Why I (an alum) never give money to Harvard..."
I've given a little, though not much. My reasons are different, though: I don't have a lot of money to give in the first place, and Harvard (though I'm an alum) is very, very low on my list. It's up to Harvard to decide how it will spend the income on its huge endowment, but it's up to me to decide whether I'll give money to make that huge endowment even bigger. I choose not to, and it's not a close call.
I've given a little, though not much. My reasons are different, though: I don't have a lot of money to give in the first place, and Harvard (though I'm an alum) is very, very low on my list. It's up to Harvard to decide how it will spend the income on its huge endowment, but it's up to me to decide whether I'll give money to make that huge endowment even bigger. I choose not to, and it's not a close call.
5
I agree with some form of this. I would add that Harvard should strongly play the guilt card to grads, i.e. you benenefiitted, now give something back, including interest.
2
ALL of our young people deserve an education from the finest colleges and universities in the US that their ancestors have helped build by paying their taxes, having government provide these schools research money/grants/loans, budget money and absolutely subsidizing the tax exempt status of these higher education schools for well over 100 years.
Sanders is dead on when he talks about the need to educate our young people. We live in a post industrial country and our kids need a ton of intellectual capital to succeed.
It's time higher ed in the US got back in the education business for the benefit of US citizens or take away their tax exempt status. It is only serving as a tax shelter.
Sanders is dead on when he talks about the need to educate our young people. We live in a post industrial country and our kids need a ton of intellectual capital to succeed.
It's time higher ed in the US got back in the education business for the benefit of US citizens or take away their tax exempt status. It is only serving as a tax shelter.
2
Nothing is free when it has to be paid by someone.
5
There has been no, and I mean no, evidence that Asians are discriminated against at Harvard or any other Ivy League school. Unz, a Harvard graduate, uses Caltech as an example of a student body without discrimination against Asians. But he should be smart enough to understand that Caltech and Harvard are completely different types of schools. Caltech is exclusively for math/science geniuses (where Asians predominate) and has no athletic recruiting. Harvard is a school with a more liberal arts bent and 40+ athletic teams. Those teams need bodies and very few of the eligible players are Asian. Unz never, ever mentions athletics, which shows either ignorance or obfuscation of the issue. If more Asians get into Harvard, by definition, someone else has to NOT get into Harvard. Is it blacks? Hispanics? Legacies? Hockey and lacrosse players? Because those would be the most likely suspects.
3
We need as a nation to develop a first class undergraduate online education system that, combined with regional testing and laboratory facilities, would allow students to get the equivalent of high quality traditional university/college educations at much lower cost. Students would have to pass the same types of tests as students attending highly ranked universities and colleges but would avoid the high expense and low acceptance rates of such institutions. Students could continue to live at home, hold jobs, and work on their degrees over a longer time span than four years. Completing degrees would require self discipline but, once the success of the program was recognized by students and employers, it would yield great benefits to both and to the nation.
2
The controversial issue of who is accepted is well documented in some major public universities which are in areas with a large Asian population such as the University of California, Berkeley. If acceptance was based primarily on high school achievement and test scores the percentage of Asians accepted would be much higher. Special factors, primarily athletic achievement and skill, is already factored into acceptance which then often results in the need for remedial programs to allow these student to achieve academically. I can understand why those who achieved academically feel they were unfairly denied acceptance to a public university with it's primary mission being academics and not athletics.
5
If Harvard is a national treasure, as its former Dean Rosovsky once claimed, the US should nationalize and operate it.
4
Oh fair Harvard. You are hardly fair. Your admissions process is ripe with ethical and legal controversy from untrained interviewers to local "rankings" meetings to admissions officers hired by private high schools to up their Ivy League admit numbers to lack of due diligence in vetting applicants who suffer from Brian Williams Syndrome. In addition, many of your "minority" admits are not exactly economically challenged. Harvard and other schools, in spite of what are probably good intentions, have created a system that rewards posers and positioners, many of whom have hired people to tailor their applications and their extracurricular activities and back stories. There are kids who don't play the game, but they rarely get in. And later they probably thank their lucky stars they didn't. Meanwhile 70% of those admits carefully chosen by the admissions' officers to change the world head off to Wall Street and big name management consulting firms when they graduate. 70 percent.
6
While the majority of the article focuses on impugning the motives of the Unz-supported candidates, there's not the slightest rationale provided for keeping the admissions data secret.
Instead, it's quite clear that those who oppose such a release simply fear the truth - probably because it flies in the face of their egalitarian dogma.
Instead, it's quite clear that those who oppose such a release simply fear the truth - probably because it flies in the face of their egalitarian dogma.
6
The egalitarian dogma is so much rhetoric. Why does Harvard even bother? It beckons mainly to an intellectual elite. And that is what it gets.
Why release a private institution's admissions data? To satisfy yokel curiosity? Harvard's high selectivity focusses on intellectual factors. Is that in doubt?
Harvard is not Annapolis or West Point. How much admissions data do service academies release?
Why release a private institution's admissions data? To satisfy yokel curiosity? Harvard's high selectivity focusses on intellectual factors. Is that in doubt?
Harvard is not Annapolis or West Point. How much admissions data do service academies release?
2
The real problem as I see it is hiring preferences given to graduates of these elite universities. Is there really any evidence that top graduates of regional schools like Central Florida or Central Michigan are less bright or capable? Since Harvard and other schools like Harvard will always have a limited number of undergrads, allowing a few more minority or working class students is just rearranging the Titanic's deck chairs. Preferential hiring of graduates of schools like Harvard or Duke is entirely a matter of status for the companies, and helps contribute to economic inequality. The issues outlined in this article represent more fluffing of the pillows when what we really need to do is strip the bed.
2
Tuittion to universities and Colleges are very high. I don't have the answer maybe not free but this needs to be addressed. Student's are graduating with tens of thousnad dollars in debt. There was a time here in New York citywhen city Universities were free. My wife Graduated with no Debt. If we expect these graduates to contribute to our society they cant start with 40-90 thousand in loans due. These graduates are the future of our society.
1
Could Harvard and the other schools on the list of billions in endowments use some of their wealth to help students around the country who can't afford any college? Northwestern, for example, could assist at Northern Illinois University or the University of Illinois, both of which are very valuable schools for families with limited resources. It seems like even a small bit of the enormous wealth of the listed colleges would go a long way for many at public institutions.
Let's just give out the degrees/diplomas without making anyone actually GO to Harvard. That's the cheapest solution.
2
Oh! How the tables have turned!
White men have been discriminated against like this for more than three decades. Now that it's happening to Asians, it's bad..
My fault, I forgot which way the hammer of equality swings.
White men have been discriminated against like this for more than three decades. Now that it's happening to Asians, it's bad..
My fault, I forgot which way the hammer of equality swings.
6
White men were not "discriminated against" for decades. They have benefited by this system for over two centuries. Its time for change.
2
Those who want to do well in school need to buckle down and study. They need to go to teachers for extra help or, at the least, form study groups with peers. They need to sit at their desks and work like hell.
Some kids can coast, but not for very long.
Too often nowadays, students blame teachers for low grades instead of themselves. They keep saying "But I tried."
No, they didn't, not really.
Those who get consistently high grades work for those grades. Black students who feel they are not getting the grades they deserve need to form study groups. Only after doing so, and spending some years spending their time absolutely studying, can they say their troubles are their teachers' fault. Or, for that matter, racism's.
Make Harvard free? Easy come, easy go.
Some kids can coast, but not for very long.
Too often nowadays, students blame teachers for low grades instead of themselves. They keep saying "But I tried."
No, they didn't, not really.
Those who get consistently high grades work for those grades. Black students who feel they are not getting the grades they deserve need to form study groups. Only after doing so, and spending some years spending their time absolutely studying, can they say their troubles are their teachers' fault. Or, for that matter, racism's.
Make Harvard free? Easy come, easy go.
7
There is a large elephant in this room that no one wants to address. It is "The Bell Curve" by Bernstein and Murray.
Contrary to liberal myth, high intelligence is not distributed randomly among racial groups. By a combination of genetics and environment, high intellectual achievement is found disproportionately among Asian-Americans. The "environment" in this case is high cultural respect for education and the "tiger mom" phenomenon that reinforces the importance of becoming learned. Many also seem to have an innate talent for math. It is simply a fact that a much larger proportion of high-schoolers of Asian background are "Harvard-ready" than is true for other racial groups. Socio-economic status has but a minor role in this equation.
On a color-blind, meritocratic admissions process, Asian-Americans would have much higher representation at the elite colleges. Shouldn't merit and the content of one's character be paramount?
Contrary to liberal myth, high intelligence is not distributed randomly among racial groups. By a combination of genetics and environment, high intellectual achievement is found disproportionately among Asian-Americans. The "environment" in this case is high cultural respect for education and the "tiger mom" phenomenon that reinforces the importance of becoming learned. Many also seem to have an innate talent for math. It is simply a fact that a much larger proportion of high-schoolers of Asian background are "Harvard-ready" than is true for other racial groups. Socio-economic status has but a minor role in this equation.
On a color-blind, meritocratic admissions process, Asian-Americans would have much higher representation at the elite colleges. Shouldn't merit and the content of one's character be paramount?
7
Mr. Dantes, there are even larger elephants in this room, to wit, white privilege and the legacy and ongoing effects of a rigid American social structure founded on white supremacy and enforced by a legal regime and a national culture of demonizing, denigrating, disenfranchising and discriminating against people of color generally and African-American and Native American people most particularly.
To declare that "[s]ocio-economic status has but a minor role in this equation" is disingenuous at best. According to a recent Pew study, 61% of adult immigrants from Asia have a bachelor's degree, at least. Obviously, a higher education level translates into better economic, housing and educational opportunities. Moreover, having been anointed the "model minority" by the powers that be and having not encountered the barriers to entry in the housing market that afflict other racial minorities, Asian Americans have had a distinctly different experience overall. Combined with an admirable cultural reverence for education and hard work, it is a recipe for success in this country.
Attributing disparities in performance on IQ tests and in academics to genetic differences is facile. To ignore the long history and devastating effects of invidious social, cultural and governmental policies and practices, some of which continue to this day, is not only dishonest, but it is the worst form of denial. Instead of The Bell Curve, try using Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee as a touchstone.
To declare that "[s]ocio-economic status has but a minor role in this equation" is disingenuous at best. According to a recent Pew study, 61% of adult immigrants from Asia have a bachelor's degree, at least. Obviously, a higher education level translates into better economic, housing and educational opportunities. Moreover, having been anointed the "model minority" by the powers that be and having not encountered the barriers to entry in the housing market that afflict other racial minorities, Asian Americans have had a distinctly different experience overall. Combined with an admirable cultural reverence for education and hard work, it is a recipe for success in this country.
Attributing disparities in performance on IQ tests and in academics to genetic differences is facile. To ignore the long history and devastating effects of invidious social, cultural and governmental policies and practices, some of which continue to this day, is not only dishonest, but it is the worst form of denial. Instead of The Bell Curve, try using Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee as a touchstone.
2
Inequality of outcome is intolerable, because it contradicts egalitarian dogma.
3
Asians weren't given the "model minority" label out of thin air. The label is applied to them because they statistically outperform whites academically, have higher per capita earnings than whites, and significantly lower per capita rates of criminal activity. And we're not talking about just one ethnicity. Immigrants from India, China, Korea and Japan all fit into the overachievement category. Apparently white privilege has no effect on several Asian communities.
Of course, it's much easier to recite passages from the latest text on Critical Theory. 50 years of complaining, and nothing but, have gotten black students a lot of access to higher ed. without widespread success or parity. This is not the fault of Asians or whites. Ever more esoteric iterations of white guilt will not create real achievement for black students, just more resentment and failure.
Of course, it's much easier to recite passages from the latest text on Critical Theory. 50 years of complaining, and nothing but, have gotten black students a lot of access to higher ed. without widespread success or parity. This is not the fault of Asians or whites. Ever more esoteric iterations of white guilt will not create real achievement for black students, just more resentment and failure.
4
My Two Cents--Really? connections don't play a role? Hum, I guess those two kids who's folks are administrators were just lucky not to be in the 50% with perfect board scores who get rejected.....Give me a call, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
3
Commenters who are demanding Harvard spend more of its endowment are exhibiting financial ignorance. You don't spend the endowment. You spend the returns the endowment earns. Exceptions are times of significant financial downturn when the endowment can serve as a cushion. Harvard is very generous with scholarships, is one of the largest employers in the area, and gives a lot to the community including programs and tutoring for local public school students. In order to do and give more it needs an even larger endowment not a smaller one. Same with taxes. I know how to get Harvard to provide more scholarships. Lets tax them! That will do the trick.
1
Do you remember when Congress appropriated a $3 billion addition to the Harvard endowment? You don't? It happened in 2014. What was the name of that legislation, and why did we add that money to the federal deficit, you say?
Well, there wasn't any new legislation needed for that transfer of $3 billion from the federal treasury to Harvard. What happened was the announcement of a $6.5 billion capital campaign for Harvard, a campaign that succeeded. That campaign generated dollar for dollar tax write-offs for the donors, saving them an estimated $3 billion in taxes, and costing the treasury the same amount.
That right, we've got a system today where Harvard can help itself to US tax money whenever they decide they want some, no pesky Congress or Presidential signature need be consulted.
That's how the 1% do it.
Well, there wasn't any new legislation needed for that transfer of $3 billion from the federal treasury to Harvard. What happened was the announcement of a $6.5 billion capital campaign for Harvard, a campaign that succeeded. That campaign generated dollar for dollar tax write-offs for the donors, saving them an estimated $3 billion in taxes, and costing the treasury the same amount.
That right, we've got a system today where Harvard can help itself to US tax money whenever they decide they want some, no pesky Congress or Presidential signature need be consulted.
That's how the 1% do it.
5
There is no better proof that the US has become a sharply stratified society than the existence of Harvard and its ilk.
In a perfect world, the one free-market fundamentalists profess to believe in, the supply of seats in elite universities would increase in response to the demand as the population grows and with it the number of applicants who meet the criteria for admission.
The US population grew enormously in the 20th century, yet the supply of places at elite colleges has remained stagnant.
This is why it is said that Harvard and Stanford could fill their freshmen classes many times over with straight-A students. This may also help explain why college tuition has soared, as will the cost of any highly sought after product when the demand far exceeds the supply.
Efforts to learn exactly how highly selective colleges select their students are commendable for many reasons. For one thing, it could put a damper on the dreadful admissions consultant industry.
But what America needs is for the current generation of tycoons to found new Harvards and Stanfords. Qualified applicants are out there in droves.
As it stands, the US already has a serious problem with an impenetrable and self-perpetuating Ivy-League educated upper class. This makes a mockery of educational meritocracy and denies entire groups of the opportunity for social and economic mobility through higher education.
In a perfect world, the one free-market fundamentalists profess to believe in, the supply of seats in elite universities would increase in response to the demand as the population grows and with it the number of applicants who meet the criteria for admission.
The US population grew enormously in the 20th century, yet the supply of places at elite colleges has remained stagnant.
This is why it is said that Harvard and Stanford could fill their freshmen classes many times over with straight-A students. This may also help explain why college tuition has soared, as will the cost of any highly sought after product when the demand far exceeds the supply.
Efforts to learn exactly how highly selective colleges select their students are commendable for many reasons. For one thing, it could put a damper on the dreadful admissions consultant industry.
But what America needs is for the current generation of tycoons to found new Harvards and Stanfords. Qualified applicants are out there in droves.
As it stands, the US already has a serious problem with an impenetrable and self-perpetuating Ivy-League educated upper class. This makes a mockery of educational meritocracy and denies entire groups of the opportunity for social and economic mobility through higher education.
7
Thank you so much for putting into words what I have thought for a long time. Some Silicon Valley tycoon needs to found a new liberal arts college (and I say liberal arts college, because writers, researchers, teachers, creative thinkers, environmentalists, ethicists are needed in addition to science and tech people in that world) with an eye to future work force needs. Prestige could come in the form of free or low tuition with guaranteed internships and connections to different companies in the areas. Many want to go to school in California, but there aren't even enough college and universities for the residential population. Top students would be clamoring to go there, as would top academics to teach. But I guess it's just much easier to give to your old staid institution or, even worse, encourage a kids to not go to college at all but join the workforce right out of high school, leaving the large portion without the gumption and drive of a Steve Jobs extremely vulnerably without a college degree.
2
They shouldn't allow a certain group of people to dominate higher education. A good start would be denying entry to whites to a place like Harvard, as well as making it free. It's obvious to anyone who looks at the facts.
Why stop at Harvard? Let's just make all colleges and universities free. That should work.
This country is going down the drain with a near majority of the population demanding "free stuff". "Free" doesn't solve anything; it just devalues the service rendered that no longer demands work and effort. What a joke this proposal is.
This country is going down the drain with a near majority of the population demanding "free stuff". "Free" doesn't solve anything; it just devalues the service rendered that no longer demands work and effort. What a joke this proposal is.
4
"If true racial reconciliation is achieved in this country, it will be through the kind of deep spiritual and emotional understanding that art can foster. You change the world by changing peoples’ hearts and imaginations." David Brooks today's NYT.
If you choose students solely on their ability to have perfect SAT scores and GPA's, you will have a body of students whose only goal is to continue the drive for perfect grades locked into libraries pursuing STEM majors. No school spirit, no opportunity to work as a team outside of scrambling for grades, no community service. Liberal arts becomes an unnecessary department and universities become trade schools. Doesn't sound like a great way to broaden ones world perspective.
If you choose students solely on their ability to have perfect SAT scores and GPA's, you will have a body of students whose only goal is to continue the drive for perfect grades locked into libraries pursuing STEM majors. No school spirit, no opportunity to work as a team outside of scrambling for grades, no community service. Liberal arts becomes an unnecessary department and universities become trade schools. Doesn't sound like a great way to broaden ones world perspective.
17
This story misses a major point: Harvard has already effectively aboloshed admission for students whose parents earn less than ablot $100K and reatly reduced it for most others. Only the wealthy pay full price.
1
You get what you pay for..........nothing is FREE
1
I cannot take credibly any plan who says it will be funded by spending down the endowment. That is not how endowments work and those making such recommendations are either too uninformed to understand as much or understand, but chose to misinform.
10
Affirmative action will soon go the way of the dodo, but not soon enough.
4
If "Affirmative Action" is going to be part of the formula...
The likes of me is dis-invited.
I'm white
I'm male
I'm middle class
Get to the back of the line.
The likes of me is dis-invited.
I'm white
I'm male
I'm middle class
Get to the back of the line.
7
1. college should be free, (as an investment in the future, the return will be way past costs).
2. the institution, discipline and level of degree should be accessible to those qualified fairly, by one-method-fits-all procedures.
3. oversight of qualification has to be rigorous, (a quality fast slipping out of education), no iffy admits.
4. hardest of all: the reform of k-12 both as an unfairly apportioned resource that restricts the opportunity of kids in poor districts and as an outdated, (unresponsive to developing research in learning and cognition), top-heavy, (expensive educrats and politicals, not teachers, calling the tunes), system that restricts the potential of all kids.
2. the institution, discipline and level of degree should be accessible to those qualified fairly, by one-method-fits-all procedures.
3. oversight of qualification has to be rigorous, (a quality fast slipping out of education), no iffy admits.
4. hardest of all: the reform of k-12 both as an unfairly apportioned resource that restricts the opportunity of kids in poor districts and as an outdated, (unresponsive to developing research in learning and cognition), top-heavy, (expensive educrats and politicals, not teachers, calling the tunes), system that restricts the potential of all kids.
1
The outrageous truth about education in America is that poor mostly black people have to endure third world conditions for their schooling. (TV news last night showed shocking pictures of school buildings in Detroit you wouldn't lodge animals in.) What talent the nation is losing when people with all sorts of potential grow up and use their streets as target ranges or sink into the hell of drug use because they haven't been offered the chance to develop their God-given abilities. Every child deserves an EQUAL opportunity, not a long shot at success.
4
Tell that to the Dem Mayors who control most of our big cities
5
the only real solution is more harvards
1
Affirmative action is well-intentioned, but the path to hell is paved with good intention. Discriminating in favor of a group is the same as discriminating against all other, since one person's admission implies another's denial. If you discriminate in favor of less capable or even mediocre people and against more talented and diligent people, it is a moral and economic abomination.
There are only a very small number of talents in any society. We should provide opportunities for their realization of their potentials. It is not only fair, but benefits the entire society as a whole.
People seem to have different opinions of who should be regarded as leaders. In a democracy, politicians are overrated. They are nothing special, and easily replaceable. Looking back, one realizes that scientists and engineers have contributed to human progress the most, but the vast majority people do not show them due respect. In NYC, many bridges are renamed after politicians, but not after scientists. It is a shame.
There are only a very small number of talents in any society. We should provide opportunities for their realization of their potentials. It is not only fair, but benefits the entire society as a whole.
People seem to have different opinions of who should be regarded as leaders. In a democracy, politicians are overrated. They are nothing special, and easily replaceable. Looking back, one realizes that scientists and engineers have contributed to human progress the most, but the vast majority people do not show them due respect. In NYC, many bridges are renamed after politicians, but not after scientists. It is a shame.
5
So let me get this straight -- the children of the ultra-rich should also get an Ivy League education for free?
3
right...whoever is qualified gets the ride.
the "ultra-rich" should just pay their higher (and loophole-free) taxes.
the "ultra-rich" should just pay their higher (and loophole-free) taxes.
2
Correct. Not only those kids, any kid irrespective of their wealth status but respective of their academic excellence should be given an Ivy League education free. Case in point; my child who aced the SAT, ACT and his GPA 8 years ago decided to skip the Ivy Leagues due to lack of financial support and refusing to burden himself with debt. Instead he chose to apply for a more competitive 7 year BS+MD program. Today he is a 1st year resident physician at one of the country's number one hospitals.
1
Looks like people aren't reading the article.
Endowments are targeted by the giver: Funding professors, research, facilities, and student aid. Alumni and Business fund the endowment. So those that think Alums kids shouldn't get in their Alma Mater, also don't think there should be an endowment.
It is a contract.
Redirect that contract and you void it. Funds go back to the donor.
Should the School represent the profile of the number of students applying (e.g. the current law suit)? Should it represent the demographic profile of the region, the country or the planet? Target trying to maximize who will benefit from that education? Or should admissions only be offered to those who will help maximize the endowment and alumni mentoring/jobs. see NYT Moneyball article 6/20/15
With so many students having a 4.0 and 2400 SATs, decisions can't be made purely on Tests, but about the make up of the class and what they will learn from each other.
Let me know which method you would use to arrive at:
UC San Diego: 45% Asian, 23% White.
UC Berkeley: 35%/30%
UC Irvine: 47%/18%
Which category do these profiles meet? Demographic, Scores, Diversity, mutual benefit to their classmates?
Who is to decide what standard a public or private school should be held?
And then who funds that diversity?
see Melissa Chen huffingtonpost 7/15/15 article on the Asian lawsuit
Endowments are targeted by the giver: Funding professors, research, facilities, and student aid. Alumni and Business fund the endowment. So those that think Alums kids shouldn't get in their Alma Mater, also don't think there should be an endowment.
It is a contract.
Redirect that contract and you void it. Funds go back to the donor.
Should the School represent the profile of the number of students applying (e.g. the current law suit)? Should it represent the demographic profile of the region, the country or the planet? Target trying to maximize who will benefit from that education? Or should admissions only be offered to those who will help maximize the endowment and alumni mentoring/jobs. see NYT Moneyball article 6/20/15
With so many students having a 4.0 and 2400 SATs, decisions can't be made purely on Tests, but about the make up of the class and what they will learn from each other.
Let me know which method you would use to arrive at:
UC San Diego: 45% Asian, 23% White.
UC Berkeley: 35%/30%
UC Irvine: 47%/18%
Which category do these profiles meet? Demographic, Scores, Diversity, mutual benefit to their classmates?
Who is to decide what standard a public or private school should be held?
And then who funds that diversity?
see Melissa Chen huffingtonpost 7/15/15 article on the Asian lawsuit
4
Check out all the commenters here who are old Harvard graduates opposed to free tuition. Resentfully pulling the ladder up behind yourselves!
The wealthiest people in California want their kids to go to UC - Berkeley, UCLA - not Ivy League schools. They know that a great university that offers a (not free but still very cheap) free education trumps a great school that demands $45,000
tuition. The folks I know who graduated from Berkeley and UCLA are incredibly smart, well-educated and successful and don't have the social/class hangups that "Harvard men" still have.
21st Century in a democracy, guys.
The wealthiest people in California want their kids to go to UC - Berkeley, UCLA - not Ivy League schools. They know that a great university that offers a (not free but still very cheap) free education trumps a great school that demands $45,000
tuition. The folks I know who graduated from Berkeley and UCLA are incredibly smart, well-educated and successful and don't have the social/class hangups that "Harvard men" still have.
21st Century in a democracy, guys.
1
Meh.
There are dozens of small liberal arts colleges which provide a comparable or better undergraduate experience than Harvard. It's all branding and pretense.
Also, despite "meh," the Harvard response is correct. University endowments are solicited for specific, restricted purposes - endowed professorships, perpetual funding of scholarly departments or projects, etc. It is illegal to redirect the endowment earnings to an unrelated purpose,unless released to do so by the donor. Mr. Unz's idea is simply nonsense.
There are dozens of small liberal arts colleges which provide a comparable or better undergraduate experience than Harvard. It's all branding and pretense.
Also, despite "meh," the Harvard response is correct. University endowments are solicited for specific, restricted purposes - endowed professorships, perpetual funding of scholarly departments or projects, etc. It is illegal to redirect the endowment earnings to an unrelated purpose,unless released to do so by the donor. Mr. Unz's idea is simply nonsense.
3
baloney....Harvard is the gold standard
1
There is a readily available site which describes college expenses: 58% of Harvard undergraduates receive scholarships; average amount is $41,000. Scholarships, unless one qualifies for some obscure grant, are need based. The site also mentions other colleges in Massachusetts, and notes that at several their tuition/expenses are 10-17% higher than Harvard's.
Harvard Admissions has always sought diversity, diversity of talent in varying fields, so that each class is diverse. When I was an undergraduate, the rumor (true?) was that a private school headmaster had called Harvard to recommend one of his seniors, a very good student and offensive lineman. The response: We already have our offensive linemen for next year. We're looking for an oboe player for the orchestra.
Harvard could admit an entire class of valedictorians, and many well qualified students won't be able to get in. Harvard has alumni interviewing prospective students all over the US and in many foreign countries, to search out that "diamond in the rough." Those interviews are a minor but yet significant part of the admissions process.
Interesting that you mention Barack Obama in your piece From a perusal of the Columbia graduation program, with no mention of his name with honors, and with no ability to see his hidden grades, it might be concluded that he was one of the affirmative action admits to Harvard Law School.
Any photo of Harvard undergraduates will reveal much diversity of appearance.
Harvard Admissions has always sought diversity, diversity of talent in varying fields, so that each class is diverse. When I was an undergraduate, the rumor (true?) was that a private school headmaster had called Harvard to recommend one of his seniors, a very good student and offensive lineman. The response: We already have our offensive linemen for next year. We're looking for an oboe player for the orchestra.
Harvard could admit an entire class of valedictorians, and many well qualified students won't be able to get in. Harvard has alumni interviewing prospective students all over the US and in many foreign countries, to search out that "diamond in the rough." Those interviews are a minor but yet significant part of the admissions process.
Interesting that you mention Barack Obama in your piece From a perusal of the Columbia graduation program, with no mention of his name with honors, and with no ability to see his hidden grades, it might be concluded that he was one of the affirmative action admits to Harvard Law School.
Any photo of Harvard undergraduates will reveal much diversity of appearance.
3
Cost is not the issue from my point of view. It is the value to American society, and especially business ethics, that calls into question the degree at any or no cost. From what America has experienced since the 1980s from business-oriented schools like Harvard is a wholesale destruction of American capitalism in favor of quick personal profits and wholly unethical conduct in such proportions that Harvard's graduates heavily contributed to the recent destruction of the world's economy. Insider connections guaranteed that justice for those who caused it and those who suffered or died because of it would be eluded.
3
I'm not sure if making Harvard tuition free will lead to fewer Asians and greater diversity of underrepresented minorities at Harvard. Look at UC Berkeley, arguably a top public university in the world. It has about 40% Asian American student body. But then Berkeley is a public institution with much lower endowment so we are not comparing apples to apples.
1
Ya' think?
Naw. We can't let just ANYONE into the club, right?
Graduates I worked with in the bleeding edge of the technology business for over 20 years from that school were no smarter, inventive, nor ANYTHING than other workers from any quality school. Evidently they are living on their reputation, since grads are grads, and after a year on the job, NO ONE cares where little 18-year-old you went to "college." What we care about is the contribution you can make to our business. I never met a Harvard grad who invented ANYTHING at our tech company. They were nice people, but no more creative than anyone else, and, in fact, if we were hoping to get something spectacular from hiring from that school, we were very much disappointed.
College is college. The real world is another thing altogether.
By not offering a free education to everyone who is admitted, this school is simply displaying the greed pandemic that is sweeping the world. I guess the Board members are all hoping for hearses with luggage racks.
Naw. We can't let just ANYONE into the club, right?
Graduates I worked with in the bleeding edge of the technology business for over 20 years from that school were no smarter, inventive, nor ANYTHING than other workers from any quality school. Evidently they are living on their reputation, since grads are grads, and after a year on the job, NO ONE cares where little 18-year-old you went to "college." What we care about is the contribution you can make to our business. I never met a Harvard grad who invented ANYTHING at our tech company. They were nice people, but no more creative than anyone else, and, in fact, if we were hoping to get something spectacular from hiring from that school, we were very much disappointed.
College is college. The real world is another thing altogether.
By not offering a free education to everyone who is admitted, this school is simply displaying the greed pandemic that is sweeping the world. I guess the Board members are all hoping for hearses with luggage racks.
2
I do think diversity is an important formula to a great educational institution. Given the natural of Asian exam competitiveness, I doubt even the elite white people have a chance against us Asians. The top Asian exam takers in the world are in Beijing University and Qing Hua University, but these top exam takers haven't been contributing much to improve the quality of education at a global level for these institutions. Given the limited scope of interests of Asian top exam takers (math, science, medicine, etc), If Harvard were to only take top scorers, the university would become a less competitive version of Qing Hua or Bejing U, which is detrimental to Harvard's reputation. Hence, I believe diversity is important in these institutions.
1
@Elliott. You miss the entire point. When society evolves to where discrimination by race is not OK, then it's not OK for any race to be discriminated for or against. There are other non-raced based remedies for past injustices. Justice Roberts was correct. The way to end racial discrimination is to end discrimination based on race.
4
How convenient it would be to benefit from centuries of denying blacks opportunity and now declare that racism is not OK, so we can perpetuate the injustices of the past: we get to keep the advantages of past discrimination and shut the door behind us!
Roberts' pronouncement was one of his classic smarmy moves, using progressive language to promote a reactionary agenda. While racism is not OK, it is alive and well, and it continues to benefit whites. Case in point - the inequality of education provided in K-12 school that are predominantly white or black, and the strenuous efforts whites continue to make to avoid school integration.
An important distinction needs to be made between racism and race-consciousness.
We are race-conscious when we recognize the historic reality that race was used as a marker in laws and policies of government and businesses that favored some people and deprived others. We are racist when we target a racial group for blanket discrimination.
It is race-conscious to look at an individual black applicant, keeping in mind the historical and contemporary social circumstances that may have shaped his/her experience, and ask ourselves how that influences what s/he has to offer the college community and what s/he will take away from the college experience. But we are not thereby engaging in racial discrimination against anyone else. We are simply recognizing reality: race is part of a person's make-up and of our society.
Roberts' pronouncement was one of his classic smarmy moves, using progressive language to promote a reactionary agenda. While racism is not OK, it is alive and well, and it continues to benefit whites. Case in point - the inequality of education provided in K-12 school that are predominantly white or black, and the strenuous efforts whites continue to make to avoid school integration.
An important distinction needs to be made between racism and race-consciousness.
We are race-conscious when we recognize the historic reality that race was used as a marker in laws and policies of government and businesses that favored some people and deprived others. We are racist when we target a racial group for blanket discrimination.
It is race-conscious to look at an individual black applicant, keeping in mind the historical and contemporary social circumstances that may have shaped his/her experience, and ask ourselves how that influences what s/he has to offer the college community and what s/he will take away from the college experience. But we are not thereby engaging in racial discrimination against anyone else. We are simply recognizing reality: race is part of a person's make-up and of our society.
2
Harvard grad Lakeside Hermit complains in her comment, "When applying to Harvard in the early 2000s, my son was rejected, despite the fact that he had more-than-perfect GPA...." Perhaps her son should be happy, inasmuch as Harvard clearly failed to inculcate in his mother that "more-than-perfect" is an oxymoron.
3
My daughter who got accepted to Harvard 15 years ago took a complete scholarship to Maryland's flagship university and turned down Harvard. Harvard is a lot of fuss for nothing Finally when my daughter took a fellowship at Harvard in her medical subspecialty she didn't think she missed out. Harvard thinks she's queen, builds her own charisma, and bloats her image, "something terrible". Everyone there competes to kill and nuttiness runs rampant. As to why Asian Americans would want to end racial quota at Harvard, I have no clue. Let them eat cake at Harvard. You eat pancake at a local public university and walk out with less debt. Harvard will never squander its endowment on free tuition. Mr.Unz will lose. Harvard guards its endowment zealously and Mr.Unz can't get his pound of flesh out of the snooty booty. As for ending racial quotas and wafting more Asians into Boston's ivory tower, Harvard won't do that either. The top brass there is firmly in favor of affirmative action. Harvard assigns points to applicants and extracurricular activities, volunteerism, extraordinary achievements etc count for points. But Harvard, in its favor wants to be fair to disadvantaged racial minorities. I hate to agree with Harvard--Preparation H as it's fondly known in our home--but in this Harvard is right. Asians may edge out disadvantaged kids in the admissions game fair and square and Prep H would see that as a disadvantage to their Asian students.
2
3 years ago Harvard made a policy of free tuition room and board for anyone with a family income of less than $60,000. Almost every family making less than $200,000 gets a scholarship, more if there are mire children in college. There are lots of loans and even part time jobs too. The endowment pays for a large percent of every tuition of every student.
Harvard rejects half of those with perfect College Boards. The College wants students who are outstanding in anything- academic, talent, athletic, leadership, volunteering, diversity, and other experiences.
Harvard rejects half of those with perfect College Boards. The College wants students who are outstanding in anything- academic, talent, athletic, leadership, volunteering, diversity, and other experiences.
25
How, precisely, are you "outstanding" in "diversity"?
Same with Princeton. So, whatever bee is in Unz's agenda bonnet is unclear -- but it clearly isn't as damning as he claims. College -- any college --isn't supposed to be free -- its supposed to be and has to be earned. Otherwise, it commodities the entire value.
Unz knows this -- so again, his agenda isn't as noble as he would like to position.
Unz knows this -- so again, his agenda isn't as noble as he would like to position.
3
This is utter nonsense and exactly what Harvard and similar schools want you to believe. Harvard firstly takes the children of the rich and powerful, especially if they are alumni. Then they take the athletes, who generally bypass the admissions office ( assuming they have adequate academic skills to survive academically so as to remain eligible by Division 1 standards- Harvard is a Division 1 school) ) Then the admissions committee indulge their "progressive" views ( with the support of the limousine liberals) by admitting their favorite ethnic groups (currently blacks and Hispanics) at the expense of Asians who are now treated like the Jews of decades ago (which has been well documented) who were often rejected despite outstanding credentials based on non objective criteria. Asians, like the Jews, will start to do better when many of them become the rich , powerful alumni
2
Back in the day, the target of discrimination wasn't Asians but Jews. What the admissions office would do is find ways to admit (highly qualified) Jews without overwhelming the "numerus clausus" quote was to assigni them to other categories ("foreign-born," "public school." California." "sagebrush country").
11
I was a Jew from a working class Irish Catholic suburb of Boston. My boards were far from perfect and I wasn't outstanding at anything. I believe I was accepted to Harvard because it was good community relations to accept someone from the wrong side of the tracks in suburban Boston. I never thought Harvard discriminated against Jews, per se, although they may well have discriminated against Jews from Long Island. Make of that what you will.
1
No doubt, the college and the donor(s) have a right to direct the use of the endowment. The real question is why earnings of those endowments should be tax-exempt
13
Why should the endowment earnings be taxed? They are spent on a variety of projects and initiatives that benefit the public. These include scientific and medical research, training future researchers and scholars in a variety of fields, and the conservation and archiving of historic documents and art.
America's research universities are national treasures. Harvard and other private universities are much better stewards of money than any government entity. Government needs to keep its greedy, partisan paws off the endowments.
America's research universities are national treasures. Harvard and other private universities are much better stewards of money than any government entity. Government needs to keep its greedy, partisan paws off the endowments.
1
Excellent question. I suggest that any university or college that enjoys a tax free, non profit status should not be considered private! It's time to say if you get tax payer money you cannot pay your Dean's and presidents millions while students are being robbed and the surrounding communities are being drained. It's time to say Universities are now more fit making organization's wherein those at the top are clawing for big $$ pay outs and big corporate perks while teaching assistants and the people actually teaching the students are getting ripped off. Their commitment to education is minuscule compared to their commitment to making a buck...or bucks.
1
Because the university is tax exempt and the earnings are used for educational purposes.
Blind justice is the opposite of affirmative action. Affirmative action, which is based on color, wastes our precious resources, promotes social injustice, and breeds inefficiency so efficiently that our nation will lose its competitiveness before long.
As we are about to celebrate MLK day, let’s remember what he says: people should be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I doubt MLK would like affirmative action; otherwise he would be another Al Sharpton. While Al Sharpton defends the rights and interests of his people understandably, MLK represents the universal and permanent ideal of equality and justice.
Harvard, do the right thing! Get rid of racial discrimination. It is wrong to discriminate against blacks, but it is equally wrong to discriminate against non-blacks.
As we are about to celebrate MLK day, let’s remember what he says: people should be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I doubt MLK would like affirmative action; otherwise he would be another Al Sharpton. While Al Sharpton defends the rights and interests of his people understandably, MLK represents the universal and permanent ideal of equality and justice.
Harvard, do the right thing! Get rid of racial discrimination. It is wrong to discriminate against blacks, but it is equally wrong to discriminate against non-blacks.
26
Josh: Nice goal but how do you accomplish it? What if all applications are anonymous and controlled by an outside agency - - and fewer minority students are enrolled? The goal has changed from the past's affirmative action and is now 'diversity' - - which is affirmative action by other means. There is no answer as all people are not equal, no matter what a piece of paper has said for a long long time.
Josh,
I believe Asian Americans brought up discrimination because they believe they have better grades than most African Americans or Latinos admitted. But should grades be the only determining factor in admitting students? College is not just about education but it is also a place to grow and discover ourselves so in some kind of a way a diverse body of students is important. BTW under-represented minorities make up 5%-9% on the entire student body in most higher education colleges. Its not an overwhelming number that puts Asian Americans at a severe disadvantage.
I believe Asian Americans brought up discrimination because they believe they have better grades than most African Americans or Latinos admitted. But should grades be the only determining factor in admitting students? College is not just about education but it is also a place to grow and discover ourselves so in some kind of a way a diverse body of students is important. BTW under-represented minorities make up 5%-9% on the entire student body in most higher education colleges. Its not an overwhelming number that puts Asian Americans at a severe disadvantage.
Hold on a minute here - Harvard claims magnanimity via $1.4 billion in undergraduate aid over 10 years. That is $140,000,000 a year. They currently have 6,700 undergrad students. Assuming all of that is really aid (and not loans) and the aid is distributed evenly, that is $21K per student. If tuition is $45K, then with room, board, books, and fees, it is well north of $60K.
So, Harvard is charging the average undergrad $40K and they think they are being generous? Talk about out of touch with reality...
So, Harvard is charging the average undergrad $40K and they think they are being generous? Talk about out of touch with reality...
13
It's more like they are charging half $45K and half nothing. 15% of current freshmen come from families with income over $500K - why should they get a free ride?
1
Your assumption of "distributed evenly" is crucial here. Assume half can easily afford the room and board, and we have Harvard covering all of tuition for those who can't afford it. That seems pretty generous to me.
1
Does Harvard really have 6700 undergrads?
"But Mr. Unz says that even with potential aid, prospective low-income applicants may be discouraged by the published tuition of $45,000 a year."
I very seriously doubt that. Keep in mind: Just because you get admitted to Harvard doesn't mean you have to accept. On the off chance that you get admitted and don't manage to figure out that gobs and gobs of financial aid are available at Harvard, maybe the $45,000 sticker price may dissuade you. But, seriously, what are the odds that someone is sharp enough to get into Harvard but not sharp enough to figure out that you won't really have to pay for it if you can't afford to?
I'll wager that no high school senior in the history of the world has decided not to apply to Harvard because of the $45,000 tuition.
I very seriously doubt that. Keep in mind: Just because you get admitted to Harvard doesn't mean you have to accept. On the off chance that you get admitted and don't manage to figure out that gobs and gobs of financial aid are available at Harvard, maybe the $45,000 sticker price may dissuade you. But, seriously, what are the odds that someone is sharp enough to get into Harvard but not sharp enough to figure out that you won't really have to pay for it if you can't afford to?
I'll wager that no high school senior in the history of the world has decided not to apply to Harvard because of the $45,000 tuition.
11
I'm pretty sure you would lose that bet! Many students don't even look at Harvard and other Ivies because of the cost. Working class and middle class whites and blacks are so discouraged by the tuition and other costs they don't even look. Articles appear frequently in the public press including the NYT telling them they won't do well at these schools because they won't fit in. It's infuriating. Students are constantly bombarded with articles that allege that some people should just accept reality and not even think about college. Insidious and true. It's a subtle and sometimes not so subtle reminder that some people just should remember their place. We have marched backward in time and it's not pretty.
1
This comment comes from the perspective of privilege. It's probably true that students with educationally-minded parents and/or who attend a high school with a proactive and informed guidance office do know about Harvard's financial aid package. However how many underrepresented students, both economically and racially, do you think actually have these advantages? I can tell you from personal experience as someone who has advised high school seniors that many students have no clue and have a great deal of difficulty navigating the complex process of college applications. Students of privilege often have an abundance of help in this area. To name just a few: SAT tutors, college advisers, strong in-school advising offices and highly involved parents. The student who can apply to and get into Harvard without this kind of assistance is rare... My son, who went to Williams, was advised by his guidance counselor to only apply to our local community college.
12
"Granted, you won't have the connections you'd get at an Ivy, but so what?"
There's a prevalent notion that "connections" can get your kid into Harvard (or Yale, or wherever). Frankly, I very seriously doubt that. I went to Harvard (Law) and certainly had no "connections." More important, my three kids all went to elite private elementary and high schools, and even the suggestion that someone would use "connections" is considered highly inappropriate. Even more important, the prospect that anyone in the admissions department at an elite university would pay any attention to "connections" these days strikes me as highly unlikely. All I've ever heard is that admissions personnel are very strongly opposed to showing any favoritism on that basis, and that they are so zealous about that that anyone even THINKING about trying to exploit "connections" will very quickly recognize that any such effort is more likely to HURT than to help their child's chances.
We do have a friend who's on the Board of Trustees of an Ivy League School, and she has two sons attending that school (actually, one already graduated). That might seem to disprove my point above, but the fact is that both of those students would have been admitted to that school (and any other school they might have chosen) based entirely on their own merits.
There's a prevalent notion that "connections" can get your kid into Harvard (or Yale, or wherever). Frankly, I very seriously doubt that. I went to Harvard (Law) and certainly had no "connections." More important, my three kids all went to elite private elementary and high schools, and even the suggestion that someone would use "connections" is considered highly inappropriate. Even more important, the prospect that anyone in the admissions department at an elite university would pay any attention to "connections" these days strikes me as highly unlikely. All I've ever heard is that admissions personnel are very strongly opposed to showing any favoritism on that basis, and that they are so zealous about that that anyone even THINKING about trying to exploit "connections" will very quickly recognize that any such effort is more likely to HURT than to help their child's chances.
We do have a friend who's on the Board of Trustees of an Ivy League School, and she has two sons attending that school (actually, one already graduated). That might seem to disprove my point above, but the fact is that both of those students would have been admitted to that school (and any other school they might have chosen) based entirely on their own merits.
3
To MyTwoCents--Your points are good, but you misunderstood the quote you cited.
"You won't have the connections you'd get at an Ivy" means that if you attend a non-Ivy college/university, your classmates will tend not to be wealthy or pre-wealthy kids. After graduation, "Ivy" pals and their parents can recommend you for jobs with stratospheric salaries, mentor you, offer stock market advice (some of it not illegal insider info, LOL), and so on.
Your State University classmates, by and large, will be helping you with an largely different set of connections..
"You won't have the connections you'd get at an Ivy" means that if you attend a non-Ivy college/university, your classmates will tend not to be wealthy or pre-wealthy kids. After graduation, "Ivy" pals and their parents can recommend you for jobs with stratospheric salaries, mentor you, offer stock market advice (some of it not illegal insider info, LOL), and so on.
Your State University classmates, by and large, will be helping you with an largely different set of connections..
1
Two: Your comment that someone trying to exploit 'connections' will likely hurt a child's chances, says little about the admission officer's integrity. Why should the actions of a parent damage the child, if said child actually was qualified on their own ability and work?
Unfortunately, the second example does little to convince others that the 'two sons' at an Ivy school, that they were not given preferential treatment. Human nature.
Unfortunately, the second example does little to convince others that the 'two sons' at an Ivy school, that they were not given preferential treatment. Human nature.
George W. Bush - doofus who was admitted to, and graduated from, Yale and Harvard Business School. Can't brag enough about how he was a "C student" who hated book learnin.
Legacies?
Not that I recall (having attended Harvard Law School in the early Seventies). AFTER being admitted, I did get a long letter listing numerous "scholarships" that apparently reflected bequests from dead alumni. Most of them offered, say, $100 if you happened to be descended from, say, a family with the surname of Ziffelschwartz from the central Pennsylvani town of Ziffelschwartzville. I didn't meet any of the requirements, and so I got nothing.
But I emphasize: That was AFTER admission, and so it had nothing to do with the admission decision. Possibly legacies counted for more in undergraduate admissions, though I doubt it was much different. And if legacies did matter back then, my impression is that they've mattered less and less over the past several decades.
This is not to say that discrimination against Asian-Americans isn't occurring -- only to suggest that, if that discrimination is occurring, "legacies" aren't the reason for that.
Not that I recall (having attended Harvard Law School in the early Seventies). AFTER being admitted, I did get a long letter listing numerous "scholarships" that apparently reflected bequests from dead alumni. Most of them offered, say, $100 if you happened to be descended from, say, a family with the surname of Ziffelschwartz from the central Pennsylvani town of Ziffelschwartzville. I didn't meet any of the requirements, and so I got nothing.
But I emphasize: That was AFTER admission, and so it had nothing to do with the admission decision. Possibly legacies counted for more in undergraduate admissions, though I doubt it was much different. And if legacies did matter back then, my impression is that they've mattered less and less over the past several decades.
This is not to say that discrimination against Asian-Americans isn't occurring -- only to suggest that, if that discrimination is occurring, "legacies" aren't the reason for that.
6
My experience comes from the sixties and down the river. Harvard seemed to diversify by geography. This meant that they had students from places like Oregon that I regarded as close to mythological. Meanwhile, down river, MIT seemed to have taken in Greatneck High, Teaneck High, Stuyvesant, Bronx Science and for some odd reason me. Harvard's geographical balancing meant fewer kids from the East Coast, fewer from cities. This meant fewer Jews, fewer Catholics etc. Today it probably means fewer Asian-Americans. I'm not saying geographical diversity is bad; I got rather tired of all the Great Neckers. I am saying that it never seemed to be challenged despite its effects.
8
Andrea: Sad to hear you judged people by their home address. Perhaps you would have been happier with a Somali, a Pole, an Irishman and an Aussie, in your music class. Just joking. But, most colleges and universities draw from their geographic area as that is what people can afford. I lived next to Great Neck and went to UCLA - - and was relieved to get away from all those Great Neck-ers. And, Bostonians.
Andrea: There are kids named Chin and Tang from Oregon, who do not live in the cities. We live in a mixed nation. I think Harvard will have to come up with a better excuse than that.
Harvard is already free for students from families with an income under $65K and students from families with and income between $65K and $150K are expected to contribute 0-10% of the cost.
https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works/cost-attendance
https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works/cost-attendance
11
I think a lot of people are missing the point. By making Harvard free, admissions would no longer be motivated to admit wealthier students. The percentage of wealthy students in the class would fall, perhaps dramatically. As it is now, the school uses a number of proxies to assure a large percentage of wealthy students - admitting legacies, admitting from prep schools and big cities, and so on. No doubt the expectation of tuition from these folks is a huge motivator.
In addition, I think it's great that people are finally waking up to the fact that white males are not the only ones suffering from affirmative action. In fact, Asians are probably the biggest losers from this policy and from the admissions of places like Harvard in general, which allot a certain number of spots for rich kids and a certain number of spots for minority kids and very few spots to middle-class non-minority over-achievers, who are disproportionately Asian. I'd love to see some data on which race has lost the most due to affirmative action.
In addition, I think it's great that people are finally waking up to the fact that white males are not the only ones suffering from affirmative action. In fact, Asians are probably the biggest losers from this policy and from the admissions of places like Harvard in general, which allot a certain number of spots for rich kids and a certain number of spots for minority kids and very few spots to middle-class non-minority over-achievers, who are disproportionately Asian. I'd love to see some data on which race has lost the most due to affirmative action.
16
Ohana,
Asian kids are suffering if you believe grades should be the only determining factor in admitting kids into college. Isn't college more than just a place for education but also a place to grow and discover ourselves.
Asian kids are suffering if you believe grades should be the only determining factor in admitting kids into college. Isn't college more than just a place for education but also a place to grow and discover ourselves.
Wrong. Wealthy families contribute as donors, not just payers of tuition. One might argue that making Harvard tuition-free would increase pressure to admit children of potential donor families.
2
[[But Mr. Unz says that even with potential aid, prospective low-income applicants may be discouraged by the published tuition of $45,000 a year.]]
A public radio program last year made the big fish/small pond observation that it would be better to be in the top ten at a good state university rather than to be in the top one hundred at an Ivy League school.
Granted, you won't have the connections you'd get at an Ivy, but so what?
Also, I think we really need to address college readiness and job readiness.
The Times did a series of articles on the struggles of people trying to attend community colleges. I'm sure this Harvard issue will get sorted out one way or another, but I think more people are affected by the weak education they are getting in public schools all across this country.
A public radio program last year made the big fish/small pond observation that it would be better to be in the top ten at a good state university rather than to be in the top one hundred at an Ivy League school.
Granted, you won't have the connections you'd get at an Ivy, but so what?
Also, I think we really need to address college readiness and job readiness.
The Times did a series of articles on the struggles of people trying to attend community colleges. I'm sure this Harvard issue will get sorted out one way or another, but I think more people are affected by the weak education they are getting in public schools all across this country.
8
I was ready to give you a recommend until I got to your last point -- the weak education at public schools. My daughter is a graduate student at Arizona State University studying bioinformatics. The lab she works in has tens of millions of dollars of equipment. My son, who works for Google, couldn't make the grade at the University of Oregon graduate school of mathematics. He is thinking about applying at Rutgers. Many of the same professors who teach in these graduate programs also teach undergraduates. Both my kids attended elite undergraduate colleges. Neither sees any drop off at their graduate schools. Our state universities are way underrated. Many excel at a lot more than football.
9
michas: I believe his comment concerned grade and high schools, not colleges and universities. And, I agree on the quality of public schools - colleges and universities.
Third.Coast was referring to weak education in public high schools. This fact was pointed out in a NYT article a couple weeks back. It seems graduation rates were way, way up but many struggled once in college. Even the bit more easy community colleges. Seems the quest to close the so called "achievement gap" was deemed more important than a good education. Thus, the "dummying down" of our schools. And the gap remained.
1
Stop whining about the socio-economic barriers facing minority children. Libraries in this country remain free, and are accessible to everyone. No child, regardless of the home environment he comes from, is excluded from the wider world. Today*s libraries have computers with internet access, and all the classics as well as up-to-the-minute books and periodicals.
The kids who succeed at elite schools must have the drive to learn and grow. They won*t receive that as part of their admissions packets.
Immigrants of color routinely beat out American-born minorities on every measure. That's an uncomfortable truth. It won*t become less true by making Harvard tuition-free.
The kids who succeed at elite schools must have the drive to learn and grow. They won*t receive that as part of their admissions packets.
Immigrants of color routinely beat out American-born minorities on every measure. That's an uncomfortable truth. It won*t become less true by making Harvard tuition-free.
22
You must have never visited an inner city library.
12
A kid whose father was shot outside his front door, whose mother won't let him venture out to the library, who spends his time playing internet chess, becomes a grandmaster, and is widely proclaimed a genius, has all the drive it takes to learn and grow. But he doesn't have the opportunity. And you would deny it to him because he does not fit your preconceived notion of who should be admitted to an elite school. Genius comes in all sizes and flavors, not just medium vanilla.
8
Most kids who get into Harvard and similar elite schools do so via a combination of 1) the blood, sweat and tears of their parents and 2) their internal smarts and ambition. You really need both. Statistically, Asian parents are very focused on getting their kids to elite schools and they have lower divorce rates.
8
Harvard needs to do something meaningful with its endowment. It is immoral of them to continue to hoard it. There should be Harvard scholarships -and plenty of them- given to community colleges throughout the country. These scholarships would cover full tuition for hundreds of students from lower income families.
11
Or at the least schools like harvard should be required to pay some taxes on the income they earn from their outsized endowments.
10
Your idea of Harvard giving away the money that people give to Harvard, for Harvard would not sit well with those who choose Harvard as the recipient of these endowments.
5
"some taxes"?
They have billions. Why exactly should their tax rate be lower than yours or mine?
They have billions. Why exactly should their tax rate be lower than yours or mine?
3
Free tuition at the most selective US universities would make the admission process more similar to the most selective European and Asian Universities. In European and Asian countries-- scholarship are provided to those with the highest scores in a national exam not based on multiple choice questions.
If College were indeed free, perhaps the families and government can devote more resources to prepare students in need of additional assistance, rather than subsidize college costs based solely on financial needs.
If College were indeed free, perhaps the families and government can devote more resources to prepare students in need of additional assistance, rather than subsidize college costs based solely on financial needs.
12
Is that what we really want in universities? A freshman class made up of 1500 kids with perfect SAT scores? Does that encourage or allow for a great learning experience? Just because someone scored highly on a test when they were 17 or 18 years old....is really quite meaningless
Unlike other opportunities, college is a zero sum game. If you let one person into Harvard, you by design exclude someone else. When one bases decisions on race, gender, legacy, or athleticism, you choose someone less academically qualified for a fundamentally academic institution. Admissions to Harvard was at one point based on firm measures. It was Harvard President A Lawrence Lowell who implemented a quota system designed to limit Jews but establishing he concept of "fit". Once firm, transparent measures were replaced with secretive admissions standards, Jewish freshman dropped from 27.6% in 1925 to less than 15% in 1933. "The summer hotel that is ruined by admitting Jews meets its fate, not because the Jews it admits are of bad character, but because they drive away the Gentiles". Today, Harvard continues this abhorrent practice by limiting Asians and favoring Black and Hispanics. Only complete transparency in admissions will prove otherwise as statistic bear out their practices.
11
Several fallacies. 1) that there is a one dimensional scale of "merit" that applicants can be accurately assigned to. Not even close. 2) that admission should be based solely on what you earn (academically) and not on what you bring to the university. Universities are a learning environment, and it benefits everyone is it is a diverse learning environment. It is not just spoon feeding information from the teacher to the students..that is called High School or Community college. You learn from your peers as well. And, you will learn a lot less related to the real world from a room full of rich prep-school white boys that you will learn from a group that is more representative of the real world.
At least half the people who apply to a school like Harvard are extremely well qualified, to the point that, individuals in the rejected group can not be easily (or even with difficulty) distinguished from the accepted group. The ALL "deserve" to be admitted. Yet only 10% of them can be accepted. The distinguishing factor then becomes what can the students bring to enrich (academically and socially) the university and lhe learning experience of the rest of the student body.
At least half the people who apply to a school like Harvard are extremely well qualified, to the point that, individuals in the rejected group can not be easily (or even with difficulty) distinguished from the accepted group. The ALL "deserve" to be admitted. Yet only 10% of them can be accepted. The distinguishing factor then becomes what can the students bring to enrich (academically and socially) the university and lhe learning experience of the rest of the student body.
14
Let's be clear. There are no blacks at Harvard from rural Mississippi. There are no blacks at Harvard who grew up in drug infested neighborhoods and lost their fathers and a successor father figure to gun violence. Kids like this have never heard of Harvard and Harvard has never heard of them. There are surely high i.q. kids among them. But Harvard won't spend the time and effort to find them. If it did, it could change the world. Is that too much to ask of the country's most prestigious university?
10
"There are surely high i.q. kids among them. "
Evidence?
There is zero chance that any kid from a drug-infested neighborhood could survive the first year at Harvard.
Evidence?
There is zero chance that any kid from a drug-infested neighborhood could survive the first year at Harvard.
4
"zero chance"
Evidence?
Evidence?
Wrong. Google "Homeless student at Harvard" and you'll find some counterexamples.
All this nonsense about college admissions based upon
ethnicity/culture makes me sick. If a student wants to be admitted to Harvard or Princeton, then they should STUDY, STUDY, STUDY. When they are admitted they can seek Pell grants, scholarships and financial aid. No one ever gave me a penny to go to college or graduate school. Why should anyone be so entitled ?
ethnicity/culture makes me sick. If a student wants to be admitted to Harvard or Princeton, then they should STUDY, STUDY, STUDY. When they are admitted they can seek Pell grants, scholarships and financial aid. No one ever gave me a penny to go to college or graduate school. Why should anyone be so entitled ?
21
Because the next great idea might come out of Compton.
7
As a white man who grew up very poor, I know what a lasting impact poverty can have.
When I was in high school I used to work 20 hours a week. I worked at a food store. At night I slept in the living room. I was so tired it was all I could do to keep my eyes open; forget about studying.
It happened that my friend had stock in the company I worked for. He didn’t work, in fact the dividends he received were greater than what I made working. He had lots of time to study and graduated near the top of the class, receiving offers of several scholarships and eventually graduating from Harvard graduate school.
I could deal with that. What I found troubling was when affirmative action came along. It bothered me that kids who were of color and came from far more affluent homes than I did were granted scholarships and special advantages because of their race. I still simmer over this and it still goes on.
The complications stemming from poverty compounded and carry forward to this day. This despite having managed to obtain advanced degrees and a life time of hard work.
So while I sympathize with those who face obstacles over their race; formalizing it as a criteria is the rub. Where does it end? All those things can be considered with a little common sense but should not be part of a yardstick etched in stone imo.
When I was in high school I used to work 20 hours a week. I worked at a food store. At night I slept in the living room. I was so tired it was all I could do to keep my eyes open; forget about studying.
It happened that my friend had stock in the company I worked for. He didn’t work, in fact the dividends he received were greater than what I made working. He had lots of time to study and graduated near the top of the class, receiving offers of several scholarships and eventually graduating from Harvard graduate school.
I could deal with that. What I found troubling was when affirmative action came along. It bothered me that kids who were of color and came from far more affluent homes than I did were granted scholarships and special advantages because of their race. I still simmer over this and it still goes on.
The complications stemming from poverty compounded and carry forward to this day. This despite having managed to obtain advanced degrees and a life time of hard work.
So while I sympathize with those who face obstacles over their race; formalizing it as a criteria is the rub. Where does it end? All those things can be considered with a little common sense but should not be part of a yardstick etched in stone imo.
35
Why are you upset with any educational advantage offered to those who have been harmed by systematic racism in this country, but you're so passively accepting of the entitlement and deference constantly shown to the wealthy - in this case the children of the wealthy who can easily afford to attend Harvard - and have cultural advantages that get them admitted - yet have never really done anything to earn such an advantage in life?
In this country "because my rich father can pay for it" shouldn't be the primary reason people can attend the finest colleges. It is. But it shouldn't be. This is not true at the best European and British universities. Nobody believes that the wealthiest are admitted to Ivy Leagues schools based on merit or attend those schools because they're more deserving. Nobody. This is just the 1% perpetuating itself.
The person who wrote above that "the next great idea might come out of Compton" recognizes what's wrong with the system Harvard has now.
In this country "because my rich father can pay for it" shouldn't be the primary reason people can attend the finest colleges. It is. But it shouldn't be. This is not true at the best European and British universities. Nobody believes that the wealthiest are admitted to Ivy Leagues schools based on merit or attend those schools because they're more deserving. Nobody. This is just the 1% perpetuating itself.
The person who wrote above that "the next great idea might come out of Compton" recognizes what's wrong with the system Harvard has now.
12
Hints on how to get into Harvard may be found in various guidebooks. Here are some that helped the Harvard graduate I know best: tell them you want to concentrate (major) in a field not that popular; start working on your resume early -- get in plays in pre-school, get in commercials and professional theater in grade school, play the lead in high school plays. Get in a cathedral choir: the choirmaster will write a good recommendation for you later. Take lots of languages: get good in one of them. Take lots of math and science: get good in one of them. Take part in national contests: language, Geography Bee, math competitions, etc. (Not spelling bees.) Read a lot so you learn to write: the essays will help you get in, if they're good. Be funny. Go to gifted summer school: TIP or CTY or ones sponsored by local universities.
10
O for God's sake--win the Intel competition, make a discovery in a lab, be a prize winning ballet dancer, be an opera star, learn to juggle cats while they meow, be a stand up comic in a NY comedy club, write a novel by the time you're ten years old, have it published in as many languages as there are countries, whistle while you laugh and while you chew swallow, be a rock star, travel all over the world and write a travelogue, better still have the excerpts of this travelogue published in Vanity Fair, write poetry and bamboozle the New Yorker to put it in with all the poetic bilge they publish--yup--you've gotta be rich to do most of these things and you've gotta be rich to go to Harvard. That's why they want affirmative action. Not to put down disadvantaged kids as not being up to the academic standards of Prep H, but minority kids may not be able to acquire these bedazzling, albeit exaggerated, extracurricular achievements without moola money to buoy their attempts to do so. That's why Prep H feels the pangs of guilt and wants affirmative action--they are not just looking for a racial quota, they also want to give poor kids a leg up. They look for geographical diversity too. Harvard is a very liberal school--funny it started out as a Christian theological institution--and it takes pride in its diverse student body. It wants to mix it up and see where the chips fall. I like Harvard for that. Otherwise the place is an irritant.
Why the lies/exaggeration? It's not necessary to be rich to get in a pre-school play. And if the child does well and enjoys it, take her to an audition for a local theater group's production. If she gets in and does well and enjoys it, send her resume to a local talent agent who will send her to auditions for commercials. Etc. (They hire kids of all social and economic backgrounds.)
If, at any point, she doesn't enjoy these things, let her make the choice to stop. Instead, help her advance in the things she does enjoy. Unless she's totally negative (like you), she'll find something free and fun to help build her resume.
Studying geography is free. Learning a language is free. Learning to read is free.
What's hard is achieving anything with a parent convinced that success is impossible for the poor.
If, at any point, she doesn't enjoy these things, let her make the choice to stop. Instead, help her advance in the things she does enjoy. Unless she's totally negative (like you), she'll find something free and fun to help build her resume.
Studying geography is free. Learning a language is free. Learning to read is free.
What's hard is achieving anything with a parent convinced that success is impossible for the poor.
1
Free tuition at Harvard is meaningless. It gives substantial financial aid and Harvard grads earn more than enough to wipe out the loan balance in a reasonable amount of time. High income harvard grads do not need more assistance. The folks who attend the middle range schools and do not have such high earning potential are the ones in real need.
7
What is the justification for the tax exemption for Harvard's endowment? It's not even being used for education purposes, as the article states, it is restricted by the intentions of the donors. Those intentions are unstated.
I would abolish the charitable tax deduction and the tax exemption for endowments and nonprofits. Churches, museums, hospitals, schools, everyone belongs in the tax tent. The idea that some economic activities are so valuable they deserve tax exemption is so last century.
I hope that the insurgents win. The time for discriminating against Asian-Americans is over.
I would abolish the charitable tax deduction and the tax exemption for endowments and nonprofits. Churches, museums, hospitals, schools, everyone belongs in the tax tent. The idea that some economic activities are so valuable they deserve tax exemption is so last century.
I hope that the insurgents win. The time for discriminating against Asian-Americans is over.
6
The assumption is that GPA, ACT, SAT, etc. are measures of merit. They are not. Instead they are measures of the socioeconomic status - which accounts for student achievement according to the research. The historical legacy of race in the USA precluded blacks from having a high socioeconomic status. Thus the need to consider other measures of achievement besides ACT, SAT, GPA.
8
This is insane. What other factors would you choose? Keep in mind universities take a holistic approach anyway. Is socioeconomic disadvantages only a black issue? (hint...no) Of course the factors you listed are measures of merit. Does socioeconomic advantages help? Of course, but a rich kid can be dumb same as a poor kid can be smart.
9
There is scads of research showing that those things are excellent measures of success at the post-secondary level.
But your idea of merit must not be related to academic success.
But your idea of merit must not be related to academic success.
5
You might choose some of the factors already employed by selective admissions: Does Johnny have any special talent, skill or particular ability? Not all GPA/SAT/ACTs are minted alike and when gathered together such homogeneity as you propose does not make for a very stimulating or creative environment.
2
Certainly Harvard should be tuition free. But they also need to provide free internet service, free bicycles, free pot, free movies, free subway rides, free tattoos, free haircuts and free nose rings. We cannot forget the tattoos and the haircuts and the nose rings. They are crucial to the plan. These kids are the future leaders of our country and the free world. We have to make certain they are getting everything they ask for.
12
And free dogs to pet in each dorm room and a monkey for each student to remove head lice.
1
They surely will receive my vote.
It is just unfortunate that I just finished paying tuition for two kids...just before the indefensible, grotesque obscenity of an institution with a $38 B endowment charging tuition comes to an end.
It is just unfortunate that I just finished paying tuition for two kids...just before the indefensible, grotesque obscenity of an institution with a $38 B endowment charging tuition comes to an end.
7
Lower income and middle income families already pay like or nothing to attend Harvard. They also meet full financial need without requiring students to take any loans.
The only real result of going to a free tuition plan would be to provide a free education to students from wealthy families.
Here is what Harvard financial aid page says about family contribution:
"20% of our parents have total incomes less than $65,000 and are not expected to contribute.
Families with incomes between $65,000 and $150,000 will contribute from 0-10% of their income, and those with incomes above $150,000 will be asked to pay proportionately more than 10%, based on their individual circumstances."
The only real result of going to a free tuition plan would be to provide a free education to students from wealthy families.
Here is what Harvard financial aid page says about family contribution:
"20% of our parents have total incomes less than $65,000 and are not expected to contribute.
Families with incomes between $65,000 and $150,000 will contribute from 0-10% of their income, and those with incomes above $150,000 will be asked to pay proportionately more than 10%, based on their individual circumstances."
11
This is exactly right. Subsidizing is the name of the game in college. The rich subsidize the poor, the smart (with scholarships) are subsidized by the marginally less smart whom pay higher tuition (this is especially true at the law and graduate business levels.) Harvard sounds like they have a targeting problem. They simply need more low income, qualified students to apply. If they do, they go for free
4
This I agree with. The rich will slurp up and burp up the dough.
1
The problem is with the high schools that minority students attend. The best among them has advisers with low expectations. The name Harvard will never come up but I think all the fuss about Prep H is artificial and inflated. People do as well from numerous other universities and you will eventually be able to take Harvard classes for free on line. I bet you will be able to listen to some of the best lectures in these schools on line, if you want, for free. Steve Jobs never paid for some of the classes he took at Stanford. He audited them. Where there is a will there's a way. Poor kids, alas, have little guidance and no one to give them daring ideas.
1
I'm all for a tuition free Harvard under one stipulation - get rid of the legacy admissions. People like to complain about affirmative action. There is no greater example of affirmative action at Harvard than a legacy admission.
As for affirmative action itself, if economic status is used instead of race, you'll still achieve a racially diverse student body.
As for affirmative action itself, if economic status is used instead of race, you'll still achieve a racially diverse student body.
3
While legacy was once a prominent factor in admissions policies (as was prep school choice, even a students height and athletic build) this factor provides only a very small advantage in admissions today, even at elite colleges. Data from the Grutter Supreme Court decision show race and athletics to be many times more advantageous than legacy. Universities like legacies because those families tend to donate in far greater percentages. That money in turn is used to support students from disadvantaged household making Harvard virtually free if your family earns less than 100,000. You also have a bit of a correlation problem with legacies. As many studies have shown (most notably from Harvard) high achieving parents are more likely to have high achieving children. How do you separate the two then?
10
Asians are a wake-up call to Americans. They excel academically despite havng none of the benefits and luxuries Americans claim are responsible for the underperformance of minorities. They may not have been enslaved, but they certainly come from some very harsh environments.
The message should be heeded. It's a competitive world out there, Americans, and no one cares what happened to your ancestors 100 years ago.
The message should be heeded. It's a competitive world out there, Americans, and no one cares what happened to your ancestors 100 years ago.
13
I was not aware that Asians rather than Asian-Americans were challenging admissions practices.
1
I was fortunate to go to a neighborhood community college while I was in high school and got my AA there. Without a college degree I never would have become an elementary teacher. My son however, took a different turn, and wound up $60,000 in debt which has now increased to such a large amount he will pay for it forever. The load of student debt on the backs of young people is outrageous and unacceptable. Why don't these Universities with their huge endowments donate to some loan forgiveness to the millions of student so strapped in debt they will never own a home or pay off their loans until they die? I find their billions of dollars of endowments jaw-dropping and unbelievable. The haves and have nots deepens every day.
6
>Representative Tom Reed, a New York Republican who is behind the >proposal, said the plan would partly address a crisis in college costs for low- >and middle-income families.
This is nonsense. The number of places at the super-elite colleges with significant endowments is minuscule compared to the number of entering students each year.
This is nonsense. The number of places at the super-elite colleges with significant endowments is minuscule compared to the number of entering students each year.
4
While I do agree that college and public education should be free, the fact is that this is not the true goal of Mr. Ins and his fellow supporters rather, their retrograde goal is to sharply curtail the number of Black, not European Hispanics , East Indians and other non -Whites admitted to Harvard, Yale, Princeton and other elite institutions. Given their seemingly model minority status, Asians are being perversely promoted and unwittingly manipulated by racial bigots with sinister intentions.
7
Instead of making Harvard free, how about making students earn their keep there by volunteerism in social programs Harvard wants to champion?
Make it a 6 year degree, make them earn their keep, and select students based on not just on their academic credentials but mostly on the initiative they've shown in being truly involved in the social programs while in high school?
Make it a 6 year degree, make them earn their keep, and select students based on not just on their academic credentials but mostly on the initiative they've shown in being truly involved in the social programs while in high school?
2
Thanks to this article, I now know who to vote against on my Board of Overseers ballot.
6
I am fed up with the unfair treatment toward Asian American applicants in admission process. All schools should release their data of admission in terms of acceptance rate of each race and gender. Every admission office should be a lot more transparent of its standards. Harvard or many other highly selective institutions should play fairly toward all applicants regardless of race and gender in their admission selection. As stated in the story, out of 320,000 Harvard Alum, only 15,000 to 20,000 are Asian American alum. That is only between 4.6% and 6.2%. Harvard University should take a deep look at its past admission practice and look forward to a fair future for all applicants.
9
Why should a private university be forced to release their admissions data? Do they not have a right to admit whomever they so choose with whatever criteria they choose? (race is likely to be struck down later this year as a factor) These institutions know full well that a 1510 SAT score (old scale) is virtually identical to 1500 and want flexibility to look at other factors as well. Or should Harvard simply admit the highest test score. Which is most fair? The question is complicated, something you grossly underestimate. Coupled with the fact that Asians and Asian Americans are grossly over represented now at every elite University, prep school, and high achieving public high school (think Brooklyn Tech, Thomas Jefferson High). Now these admissions are absolutely well deserved, and as such Asians will continue to increase their representation at the alumni level, the stats you cite will only increase.
5
Mike writes, "out of 320,000 Harvard Alum, only 15,000 to 20,000 are Asian American alum. That is only between 4.6% and 6.2%. Harvard University should take a deep look at its past admission practice"
The suggestion is that this is a very low percentage. However, considering that those 320k alums graduated over the past 60 years, the percentage of Asian Americans alums is not at all low relative to the demographics of the US population.
Even in the most recent US Census (2010) the percentage of Asians in the US population was only 5.6%, and 4.2% in 2000, (including both Asians and part Asians). For Asians in 1990, the percent was 2.8%, It was lower and lower in each earlier decade with only 0.5% of the US population being of Asian background back in 1960 when the older alums were graduating.
Given those demographics, the percent of Asian Americans among Harvard alums is well above the Asian percent of the US population. Perhaps on merit it should be even higher, but it is not low relative to US demographics.
The suggestion is that this is a very low percentage. However, considering that those 320k alums graduated over the past 60 years, the percentage of Asian Americans alums is not at all low relative to the demographics of the US population.
Even in the most recent US Census (2010) the percentage of Asians in the US population was only 5.6%, and 4.2% in 2000, (including both Asians and part Asians). For Asians in 1990, the percent was 2.8%, It was lower and lower in each earlier decade with only 0.5% of the US population being of Asian background back in 1960 when the older alums were graduating.
Given those demographics, the percent of Asian Americans among Harvard alums is well above the Asian percent of the US population. Perhaps on merit it should be even higher, but it is not low relative to US demographics.
4
Let's discuss the funding of PUBLIC education. Let's not worry about telling private colleges whom they can and cannot admit and to whom they can give scholarships. Funny how conservatives hate government overreach unless it gives them a break. Free tuition for the 1%: really?
5
Don't the tax payers fund private colleges by giving tax exempt status? Shouldn't we the tax payers have a say on them?
6
Great point Don. If Harvard wants to keep total control of its admissions, the price has to be giving up their tax exempt status. That would be perfectly fair.
2
A dirty little secret of college pricing? Tuition is the 'retail' price and not the actual cost of educating a student.
If the real cost of educating a student is $30,000 per annum a college simply sets the tuition at $50,000. When a promising student comes along that they'd like to recruit, the college can simply turn around and offer that applicant a "scholarship" of $20,000. Voila! Money from thin air.
If the real cost of educating a student is $30,000 per annum a college simply sets the tuition at $50,000. When a promising student comes along that they'd like to recruit, the college can simply turn around and offer that applicant a "scholarship" of $20,000. Voila! Money from thin air.
2
Sorry, your numbers are backwards. The "retail" cost of Harvard college is already steeply discounted. The true cost of operation divided by the number of students is something on the order of twice retail.
1
"Diversity" is the current code word for racial discrimination, mostly against Asians. This is an old story. US medical schools once established quotas for Jews to restrict their admissions to their percentage of the population because there were too many qualified Jews applying for entry. The Supreme Court has banned racial quotas but can't seem to understand that schemes designed to achieve "diversity" amount to the same thing. Any engineer who deals with control systems understands that if you design a system to satisfy a numerical result, it makes no difference what you are controlling to achieve it. They are starting to catch on though.
5
The Supreme Court will likely ban race as a factor in admissions later this year. While they banned strict racial quotas in Grutter (I and II) race could and still is a factor, among others, that may be considered. Asian discrimination is a hard question because Asian students are by and large so overwhelmingly over represented at elite schools. Is your admissions criteria only grades and SAT scores? Do you think music, athletics, volunteerism, leadership positions, also of value? How about someone working 40 hours a week trying to be the first person in their family to go to college? These are tough questions. What is known, simply because is out there, that race plays an even bigger role in law and medicine. They do break down admission by race with test scores, and the results are striking
Here's an excellent point that Harvard does overlook:
"'Need-blind' means nothing but for a family of 4 earning $125k-$280k a year, where elite private schools remain basically out-of-reach, unless you want to get into massive debt."
Not to minimize the economic plight of families making less than that, but very many families are in that $125k-$280k a year range – too well off to qualify for financial aid, but strapped enough that they need to take on massive debt to send their kid to college.
Rather than offer free tuition to Bill Gates' kid, maybe Harvard should give financial aid to families whose income is just above the present cut-off point.
"'Need-blind' means nothing but for a family of 4 earning $125k-$280k a year, where elite private schools remain basically out-of-reach, unless you want to get into massive debt."
Not to minimize the economic plight of families making less than that, but very many families are in that $125k-$280k a year range – too well off to qualify for financial aid, but strapped enough that they need to take on massive debt to send their kid to college.
Rather than offer free tuition to Bill Gates' kid, maybe Harvard should give financial aid to families whose income is just above the present cut-off point.
3
@MyTwoCents,
With respects, I almost chuckled after reading "not to minimize the economic plight of ...less than $125-$280k.." To many people, that's not "strapped" but a small fortune.
Wow.
1-15-16@12:47 am est
With respects, I almost chuckled after reading "not to minimize the economic plight of ...less than $125-$280k.." To many people, that's not "strapped" but a small fortune.
Wow.
1-15-16@12:47 am est
4
One thing list in the affirmative action debate is that many wealthy investors from abroad, notably Chiba and Japan, buy themselves legal residency in the states, and citizenship for their children. To be able to send kids to our univeraities is a huge incentive for many wealthy Chinese I knoas they scheme to get their kids residency through "fair" means and foul. Applying as an American resident means their chances increase exponentially.
2
If you think Asians are discrimated in college admissions, wait til you see what goes on in med school admissions and hospital employment in NYC. Asians in general work for Jewish chairman amd CEOs. The derm and optho spots generally go to Jewish students.
10
Do tell american, exactly why you feel that successful Jews are a problem?
Free tuition for Ivy League students does not make sense. They have the best prospects for paying off their loans (if any, due to generous financial aid). We need free or low debt higher education for all. The system now requires either parental money or taking on huge debt through student loans.
In case you were wondering the odds of being accepted into any (>1) of the 8 Ivy League schools you have a 51.2% chance of assuming its pure luck.
Acceptance rate for individual school (As): Columbia (0.061), Princeton (0.07), Brown (0.085), Harvard (0.053), Dartmouth (0.103), UPenn (0.099), Yale (0.0626), Cornell (0.149).
In case you were wondering the odds of being accepted into any (>1) of the 8 Ivy League schools you have a 51.2% chance of assuming its pure luck.
Acceptance rate for individual school (As): Columbia (0.061), Princeton (0.07), Brown (0.085), Harvard (0.053), Dartmouth (0.103), UPenn (0.099), Yale (0.0626), Cornell (0.149).
3
.
I've studied with affirmative action students
and it's an Eye-Opener
.
I've studied with affirmative action students
and it's an Eye-Opener
.
5
Please explain. What did you learn from studying with affirmative action students?
1
Folks, don't you understand the point of published tuition prices? It's so that IF you have the means to pay, you have to pay. I know families with two earners in the six figures who were awarded considerable financial aid. If you suddenly made these elite schools tuition free, it would essentially mean full scholarships to even the hedge fund billionaire kids who go there.
2
The best single thing Harvard could do to improve the selection process is to get rid of legacy students. With such a large endowment they obviously do not need to cater to the children of alumni.
6
This is tiresome. The child of a poorly paid assistant professor at a state school who happened to earn his college degree at Harvard is considered a legacy. Does that child threaten your model of social equity?
2
Maybe I'm just being bitter, but is it fair to go to the best school in the world, AND get it for free? There are millions of students at less-prestigious schools who rack up tens of thousands of dollars in debt. I'm not too worried about a Harvard student's ability to pay it back.
11
There are more qualified applicants than spots. That is one part of the problem. You could fill the place to the rafters and some qualified kid would still not get in. A Harvard Admissions officer told me once that 80% of the people who apply for admission have the aptitude, scores and background that suggest they would do fine at Harvard and succeed; unfortunately they only have room to admit about 5% of those who actually apply.
That said, race based admissions build resentment. Poor and rural whites are one of the most under-represented groups in the Ivy League if you are concerned with diversity and an incoming college cohort truly reflecting the population at large. But colleges aren't. Not really.
They group students by skin color which is ridiculous as other readers have noted, quite simply because a wealthy Asian kid has more in common with a wealthy white kid that he does with some poor Asian kid who is a recent immigrant. Affirmative action has also benefited recent immigrants of color from the Caribbean and Africa over African-Americans for whom the programs were original designed.
Colleges need to get out of the social engineering business. Dump race based admissions and focus on student quality with some preference for economically disadvantaged kids who overcame obstacles and still achieved. It would be fairer and less divisive.
That said, race based admissions build resentment. Poor and rural whites are one of the most under-represented groups in the Ivy League if you are concerned with diversity and an incoming college cohort truly reflecting the population at large. But colleges aren't. Not really.
They group students by skin color which is ridiculous as other readers have noted, quite simply because a wealthy Asian kid has more in common with a wealthy white kid that he does with some poor Asian kid who is a recent immigrant. Affirmative action has also benefited recent immigrants of color from the Caribbean and Africa over African-Americans for whom the programs were original designed.
Colleges need to get out of the social engineering business. Dump race based admissions and focus on student quality with some preference for economically disadvantaged kids who overcame obstacles and still achieved. It would be fairer and less divisive.
10
Most of us fail to see a distinction between social engineering and preference for economic disadvantage.
Valid point, but why single out Harvard?
"American taxpayers are transferring wealth ... by giving ... [donors to Harvard] a tax deduction.
I'll wager you've never thought about this, but if some wealthy person gives a $100,000 painting to a museum, and deducts $100,000 from his taxable income, American taxpayers are effectively paying nearly half the cost of that painting – whether they like it (the painting) or not. The donor's happy to take the deduction, of course, and the museum is happy to see him get it (so maybe he'll give more paintings in the future), but I'm not entirely sure that "American taxpayers" think it's such a good idea.
But that's the tax law, so don't single out Harvard.
"American taxpayers are transferring wealth ... by giving ... [donors to Harvard] a tax deduction.
I'll wager you've never thought about this, but if some wealthy person gives a $100,000 painting to a museum, and deducts $100,000 from his taxable income, American taxpayers are effectively paying nearly half the cost of that painting – whether they like it (the painting) or not. The donor's happy to take the deduction, of course, and the museum is happy to see him get it (so maybe he'll give more paintings in the future), but I'm not entirely sure that "American taxpayers" think it's such a good idea.
But that's the tax law, so don't single out Harvard.
12
@MyTwoCents,
So, you're saying the tax laws need revision?
1-15-16@1:01 am est
So, you're saying the tax laws need revision?
1-15-16@1:01 am est
1
Harvard and all the Ivies should have the courage and honesty to jettison legacy admissions. If it did, Asian Americans would stand a much better chance of taking a large number of freshman admission slots. The UCs, primarily Berkeley and UCLA, have huge numbers of merit based Asian American students. That other world class universities in the Ivy system don't is quite revealing: they're saving the majority of slots for the children of their 1%er alums, a shameful practice for those who profess to care about diversity.
3
This simply is not true anymore. While legacies were a very important factor 40 years ago, filings in the Supreme Court on the various affirmative action cases show plainly that legacy is only a very small advantage (unlike race or athletics for example) and many universities have jettisoned the practice altogether. You forget that legacies give advantages to universities that help the broader student body and unlike race, studies have repeatedly shown that high achieving parents beget high achieving children. "saving the majority of slots for the children of their 1%er alums" is an extraordinary gross exaggeration backed up by nothing but hyperbole. This is especially true when one looks at the demographics. Asians students are far over represented at elite schools (and elite prep schools) based on population (similar to the admission of Jews in years past), and they will continue to be a larger majority. Should Asians represent a larger majority? probably, but to do so you would not be taken slots from white students but instead from less qualified other minority groups that got in based on affirmative action. Affirmative action taketh, affirmative action taketh away
5
In this year's Harvard freshman class, only 16% of students had a parent who went to Harvard, Also, 16% of freshmen were the first members of their families to go to college.
Their classmates will benefit by learning a lot from members of both of these demographic groups.
Their classmates will benefit by learning a lot from members of both of these demographic groups.
5
Harvard pays more in commission to its fund managers than in financial aid to its students. What's wrong with this picture? Time to tax that endowment revenue and redistribute it to the public schools. The egalitarians running these schools shouldn't have any problem with that, after all, egalitarianism is why they support AA isn't it?
6
@Listen,
As the younger daughter of a retired public school teacher (librarian), I'm the last to disagree with you, but, how would you suggest the money be distributed?
1-15-16@1:05 am est
As the younger daughter of a retired public school teacher (librarian), I'm the last to disagree with you, but, how would you suggest the money be distributed?
1-15-16@1:05 am est
1
I've got a bigger question for Harvard -- do elite colleges do more harm than good? The basic model for secondary education is one size fits all. Some high schools are elite. Some are substandard. But most high schools are somewhere in the middle. That spectrum broadens drastically after high school, from community colleges to elite private universities. Is that the way it should be? At the graduate school level, we are training people who might change the world. Elite professors for brilliant students makes sense. But at the college level, in my experience, it's not like that. And it is my opinion that a lot of the elitism in our colleges serves no particular purpose and that we'd be better off going to a different model.
2
When I went to grad school at Harvard, I was overwhelmed by the resources which offered themselves this son of a railroad brakeman. Want to look at that major Soviet painting not currently on exhibit? Just order it up from storage, and it will be brought to your desk for a private viewing. Need to immerse yourself in Russian? Of course you will have an all-paid summer study course in the USSR.
My second year, I found that I was given a named scholarship in Early Modern European history - and the Italian Contessa whose family endowed it urged me to stop by the family's villa if I ever happened to be in Tuscany.
One question I have not seen addressed here is the possible beneficial effect on Harvard's endowment itself. Currently well-to-do students can get their Harvard education and pay back minimal amounts, saying they paid for Harvard up front.
Future "Free Harvard" graduates would be under tremendous moral and social pressure to give back and "share the wealth" - possibly so much that Harvard would even be able to expand its reach to a broader circle of students, offering more free programs and assisting other institutions.
A sort of voluntary socialism? Perhaps, and not the worst outcome for the world.
My second year, I found that I was given a named scholarship in Early Modern European history - and the Italian Contessa whose family endowed it urged me to stop by the family's villa if I ever happened to be in Tuscany.
One question I have not seen addressed here is the possible beneficial effect on Harvard's endowment itself. Currently well-to-do students can get their Harvard education and pay back minimal amounts, saying they paid for Harvard up front.
Future "Free Harvard" graduates would be under tremendous moral and social pressure to give back and "share the wealth" - possibly so much that Harvard would even be able to expand its reach to a broader circle of students, offering more free programs and assisting other institutions.
A sort of voluntary socialism? Perhaps, and not the worst outcome for the world.
3
Many who say that Harvard should be tuition-free are essentially arguing:
1. Harvard has enough money that it could stop charging tuition.
2. THEREFORE, Harvard should stop charging tuition.
#2 doesn't follow from #1.
All #1 means is that Harvard has a lot of money. No dispute there. But that doesn't mean it should spend all that money by not charging tuition (#2) to students who can afford it (or whose parents can afford it). There are many other ways to spend that money, and my impression is that Harvard is largely making all the right choices about how to do that.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and my impression is that it ain't broke.
1. Harvard has enough money that it could stop charging tuition.
2. THEREFORE, Harvard should stop charging tuition.
#2 doesn't follow from #1.
All #1 means is that Harvard has a lot of money. No dispute there. But that doesn't mean it should spend all that money by not charging tuition (#2) to students who can afford it (or whose parents can afford it). There are many other ways to spend that money, and my impression is that Harvard is largely making all the right choices about how to do that.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and my impression is that it ain't broke.
4
Right, Harvard should be free.
Harvard should admit everyone. Okay, I also agree.
In fact, if we want to make life in the U.S. completely fair, every high school graduate should get a Harvard degree four years later.
Then, then, they will all get to be millionaires ... even if the government has to pass a law for that as well.
Total equality. What could go wrong?
Harvard should admit everyone. Okay, I also agree.
In fact, if we want to make life in the U.S. completely fair, every high school graduate should get a Harvard degree four years later.
Then, then, they will all get to be millionaires ... even if the government has to pass a law for that as well.
Total equality. What could go wrong?
5
If Harvard does not bypass Asian-Americans yet provides affirmative action for Latinos and blacks - then it discriminates against white applicants. Not rocket science.
6
Race does not exist, except as a social construct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
2
Would you prefer that your kid attend a racially segregated Harvard, or a diverse school whose students have, on average, lower SAT scores? For those who do get in, is a student's experience and education more likely to develop his or her humanity if the institution provides a community that reflects the demographics of contemporary society?
People often complain that fairness demands an "objective" standard to which all students are equally held. This is analogous to saying that after high school the kids should all race, and the fastest will win, because that's what's fair, overlooking the previous 18 years during which practically every fostering influence that makes a kid fast has been substantially denied to many of the runners. Sure -- fairness matters -- but demanding that a system rubber stamp the prejudicial influences that seem to make a group of kids "better" is willful ignorance of the realities of life in the USA.
People often complain that fairness demands an "objective" standard to which all students are equally held. This is analogous to saying that after high school the kids should all race, and the fastest will win, because that's what's fair, overlooking the previous 18 years during which practically every fostering influence that makes a kid fast has been substantially denied to many of the runners. Sure -- fairness matters -- but demanding that a system rubber stamp the prejudicial influences that seem to make a group of kids "better" is willful ignorance of the realities of life in the USA.
4
White men, who have experienced no impediments with respect to jobs, education, opportunity, property, and on and on, and who have been the biggest recipients of affirmative action since the founding of the republic, regardless of merit, now think that it is a bad idea.
Surprise, surprise.
Surprise, surprise.
17
Your comment well-illustrates the unfortunate, dehumanizing, dismal impact of affirmative action: it sustains intolerance and locks us into putting human beings into convenient pigeonholes. Which "white men" are you talking about who have been the recipients of affirmative action? Historically, the vast majority were small farmers (many of them itinerant) eking out a living; there were also fishermen, craftsmen, urban laborers, coal minors, and later factory workers.
I'm no fan of Donald Trump -- I despise what he stands for -- but when I hear messages such as yours, I understand his appeal.
I'm no fan of Donald Trump -- I despise what he stands for -- but when I hear messages such as yours, I understand his appeal.
8
@Linda. It's easy to overlook the privileges that white men have enjoyed at all socioeconomic levels, such as the laborers, miners and factory workers whose employers and/or unions excluded blacks, or the farmers who enjoyed more favorable financing than black farmers.
It is sad that this country was OK categorizing people by race for centuries when it involved disadvantaging non-whites, but as soon as anyone tries to take race-conscious measures to correct past injustices, we are suddenly told this is racist discrimination. That's intellectually dishonest.
It is sad that this country was OK categorizing people by race for centuries when it involved disadvantaging non-whites, but as soon as anyone tries to take race-conscious measures to correct past injustices, we are suddenly told this is racist discrimination. That's intellectually dishonest.
34
So you are going to exclude poor Asian-Americans to correct past injustices, as you call it? How is that right?
2
Colleges who select their students by using an opaque process that is said to deliver "diversity" need to recognize the impact such policies have on secondary education. I suspect most U.S. high school teachers have long ceased to exhort their students to "be the best". Many assume that a cleverly crafted resume may be more persuasive to those anonymous admissions officers than the highest GPA or test score. If high school students are no longer pressed to compete and to excel, most will happily embrace mediocrity.
6
I believe that you could devise an admission system that factors in the applicant's family educational background, circumstances of the student's growing up, and numerous other factors without ever raising the question of race or ethnic background. In doing so, you could admit a quota of "disadvantaged" students, as measured by standards that never mention race or ethnic background. Rather, you would take into account the student, his potential, and his past success despite significant family or economic disadvantages.
And if you did this, you would probably find a considerable representation of disadvantaged minorities. But the emphasis would be on the fact that they are disadvantaged, and not that they are minorities.
As for tuition, free sounds good.
And if you did this, you would probably find a considerable representation of disadvantaged minorities. But the emphasis would be on the fact that they are disadvantaged, and not that they are minorities.
As for tuition, free sounds good.
6
Come on, who needs Harvard? It is a myth. As a University of Iowa graduate, I had no trouble competing with Harvard graduates on a national level career. Indeed, I more than once heard Harvard described as "the eloquence that disguises." There are many places to get a world-class education. Harvard is maybe just one of them.
5
It's not about merit. It's about the alumni network.
2
Come on, Harvard is not only one of those world-class schools, it likely IS the top one. Your anecdotal story is hardly representative. Iowa is a very fine school, and it doesn't surprise me that you could easily compete with many a Harvard grad. I like numbers, and it is far better to graduate from Harvard for ones career than Iowa, unless you want to live in Davenport. In my field, Iowa has a very good law and business school, yet virtually no top companies or law firms recruit there. Just saying
2
I interview prospective Harvard students and receive information about incoming classes. I was not supprised to learn that recently Harvard had 3000 valedictorians apply. I also get information abut acceptance rates. For several years I was surprised by the large number of Asian students who were admitted. Your article might have provided statisticx on the distribution of adikissions by race. James R. Gillen '59, J.D. '65
4
James, why were you surprised? Did they appear to be academically unqualified?
2
In graduate school I did a project looking at the Harvard endowment financials. It surprised me to learn that Harvard's endowment was petty-cash until it turned its fund over to financial managers after the 1974 crisis. They are right to ask why they are sitting on a huge pile of cash and if their real purpose it just to make more money. We have lots of people who do that.
Most of the presentation is deadly dull but the graph beginning at minute 2:02 is enlightening:
https://youtu.be/VdJD2PexgVY?t=123
Most of the presentation is deadly dull but the graph beginning at minute 2:02 is enlightening:
https://youtu.be/VdJD2PexgVY?t=123
7
I find it odd that the story completely misses who would really benefit from tuition-free Harvard -- it's the wealthy prep school kids, who are the only ones actually paying tuition these days. Harvard is virtually free already for anybody with a family income under 90k. The free tuition proposal sounds nice, but trying to argue that it would benefit low-income applicants who don't know Harvard has extremely generous financial aid -- that's a stretch. If they're getting into Harvard, they are probably smart enough to read the financial aid package and know how generous it is. If they're low income minority kids smart enough for Harvard, it means they have half a dozen or a dozen schools courting them, offering them the moon.
119
Tb is absolutely correct. Anyone who knows how Harvard operates under President Faust understands how the University endowment was hammered under the guidance of ex Wall Street gurus who immediately abandoned ship when the mountains of credit swaps they engineered threatened the financial security of the University. Harvard is still under financial duress because of that misadventure yet it's first priority remains providing free tuition to all except those from wealthy families.
1
You are so right, Tb. My daughter went to an Ivy. Just as she graduated in 2004, most ivies had adopted a policy of not asking any low income students to take out loans. She missed out on that but she only had to take out about two grand a year in student loans and got academic scholarships for most of her tuition, room and board and then private grant from the university to cover the rest.
Her only parent, me, was disabled, unable to work. My income was so low that each year, after we submitted our FAFSA, the school would write to me and say my income was unusually low and had I, per chance, made a mistake?
One could say my white daughter benefited from growing up poor but with a severely gifted IQ. She had gone only to elite private schools, all on scholarship and she stood out in anything she did. She looked like an elite prep school kid on paper, and she had gone to an elite prep school, but our household income was below the federal poverty line. We survived because my mother let us live in a house she owned.
And you are correct when you say any student with the smarts to seriously consider elite schools like Harvard, Yale, etc. are smart enough to be fully aware of the financial aid available for poor applicants. But you might be surprised.
My daughter, while in h.s., had poor friends who were as smart as her but who believed they should not bother to apply to the most elite schools, assuming they could never swing it. We educated them about elite fin aid.
Her only parent, me, was disabled, unable to work. My income was so low that each year, after we submitted our FAFSA, the school would write to me and say my income was unusually low and had I, per chance, made a mistake?
One could say my white daughter benefited from growing up poor but with a severely gifted IQ. She had gone only to elite private schools, all on scholarship and she stood out in anything she did. She looked like an elite prep school kid on paper, and she had gone to an elite prep school, but our household income was below the federal poverty line. We survived because my mother let us live in a house she owned.
And you are correct when you say any student with the smarts to seriously consider elite schools like Harvard, Yale, etc. are smart enough to be fully aware of the financial aid available for poor applicants. But you might be surprised.
My daughter, while in h.s., had poor friends who were as smart as her but who believed they should not bother to apply to the most elite schools, assuming they could never swing it. We educated them about elite fin aid.
3
Come on now.
The wealthy prep school kids aren't gonna forgo attendance because they can't afford it. They're gonna go, and their parents are gonna pay, and it'll be pocket change.
Tuition-free helps those who aren't rich.
The wealthy prep school kids aren't gonna forgo attendance because they can't afford it. They're gonna go, and their parents are gonna pay, and it'll be pocket change.
Tuition-free helps those who aren't rich.
1
While I can't say whether Harvard will ever offer free tuition across the board, I can say this: it is utterly irrelevant to almost everyone.
Harvard already rejects somewhere in the neighborhood of 95% of the students who apply. Offering free tuition would just make the odds of getting in something more like the lottery. The rest of us will still be left in the real world, trying to figure out if we should re-fi the house or sell a kidney to pay the shot at a state school.
For everyone who gets into Harvard there are about 19 qualified people - right now - who did not, and each will be able to demonstrate how they were better qualified than someone who got the nod. As long as we all agree that our top schools should have a student body made up entirely of students who all have the best scores, grades, who all spent weekends at math camp or a science symposium, who all play an instrument, and who all visited South America to help surgeons aid children, whose parents were able to afford them the opportunity to perfect the resume, then the argument that any school be transparent with admissions is a sound one.
But if we decide that a few quirky oddballs, a few athletes, a few people from an inner city, a few artists, a girl who pulled herself out of free fall through an alternative program.... if we decide that they might be valuable as students as well, even though they did not ace the ACT and and the AP exams, then transparency will be just as illusory as it is now.
Harvard already rejects somewhere in the neighborhood of 95% of the students who apply. Offering free tuition would just make the odds of getting in something more like the lottery. The rest of us will still be left in the real world, trying to figure out if we should re-fi the house or sell a kidney to pay the shot at a state school.
For everyone who gets into Harvard there are about 19 qualified people - right now - who did not, and each will be able to demonstrate how they were better qualified than someone who got the nod. As long as we all agree that our top schools should have a student body made up entirely of students who all have the best scores, grades, who all spent weekends at math camp or a science symposium, who all play an instrument, and who all visited South America to help surgeons aid children, whose parents were able to afford them the opportunity to perfect the resume, then the argument that any school be transparent with admissions is a sound one.
But if we decide that a few quirky oddballs, a few athletes, a few people from an inner city, a few artists, a girl who pulled herself out of free fall through an alternative program.... if we decide that they might be valuable as students as well, even though they did not ace the ACT and and the AP exams, then transparency will be just as illusory as it is now.
36
I liked the Malcolm Gladwell idea in OUTLIERS: a lottery of all applicants who meet the minimum requirements to be academically successful at Harvard. No legacies, etc. Luck of the draw. So many applicants to Harvard have already won the egg and sperm lottery.
21
I never realized that a shortage of qualified applicants from all backgrounds was a problem at Harvard.
And if a spike in applicants results from free tuition, how will the incoming class be balanced, other than by use of affirmative action?
And if a spike in applicants results from free tuition, how will the incoming class be balanced, other than by use of affirmative action?
11
Universities would engineer their acceptances for diversity even without a legal mandate. They do this all the time, to market themselves as diverse.
1
Yes, Harvard did take smart, not-rich Jewish kids, but not so many smart, not-rich Asian kids. When I was attending Harvard in the 70s, one third (about 10) of the girls on my dorm floor were Jewish, but I was the only Asian and a very poor one. I don’t think Harvard admission office intentionally gave preference to Jews, but their last names could easily be passed as Caucasian’s; not so lucky for Asians.
When applying to Harvard in the early 2000s, my son was rejected, despite the fact that he had more-than-perfect GPA (4+), perfect SAT scores (800) in every subject, and even a perfect 10 at his Harvard interview. He had also won multiple national-level science and music awards. On top of that, both of his parents were Harvard alumni. But the “legacy” quota did not apply to our son, because we were not among the rich and powerful. Has Harvard discriminated against Asian-Americans in admissions? Back then, my answer was definitely positive.
Now, my son is 30 years old and an accomplished scientist. I am ever grateful to the education MIT gave him. I don’t think Harvard cares as much about creating a scientist out of him as MIT does. Instead, a great many smart Harvard science majors ended on Wall Street. That’s the “environment” there. They may make more money and contribute to Harvard’s endowment, but my son is making real contribution to the mankind. Maybe this was the choice Harvard already made in its admission process.
When applying to Harvard in the early 2000s, my son was rejected, despite the fact that he had more-than-perfect GPA (4+), perfect SAT scores (800) in every subject, and even a perfect 10 at his Harvard interview. He had also won multiple national-level science and music awards. On top of that, both of his parents were Harvard alumni. But the “legacy” quota did not apply to our son, because we were not among the rich and powerful. Has Harvard discriminated against Asian-Americans in admissions? Back then, my answer was definitely positive.
Now, my son is 30 years old and an accomplished scientist. I am ever grateful to the education MIT gave him. I don’t think Harvard cares as much about creating a scientist out of him as MIT does. Instead, a great many smart Harvard science majors ended on Wall Street. That’s the “environment” there. They may make more money and contribute to Harvard’s endowment, but my son is making real contribution to the mankind. Maybe this was the choice Harvard already made in its admission process.
206
Harvard always choose wealth and power over achievement. Just count how many foreign countries' politicians got into Harvard beyond their schooling age and you would understand.
17
The smart kids go to MIT anyway.
8
As an engineer, your son was lucky that Harvard said no since he ended up going to MIT. Really. It's a much better environment for us nerds and techies to be with our own and shine. Also there is little legacy insanity there which does make a difference in the student attitudes.
14
This is pure bunk. College is an earned privilege. It is not a right based on skin color or income level. Make the grades and prove yourself, and you will be given a scholarship if you cannot afford to attend any college. It is not the American way to expect that you will be given a free pass simply because you are non-white. Free tuition will turn Harvard into the mess that is the city college system of New York. Dumbed down, full of functionally illiterate and undeserving students that believe they deserve to go to college simply by graduating from high school with barely passing grades. What a farce.
33
It's like the politicians recommending free college for everyone. You will end up with students that drop out because they realize they can't compete and college is not for them and just want to try it out. A better way is to offer more government student loans, vs high interest private loans, so that the students that really want to go to college will have a way to pay for it that won't kill them after they graduate.
1
Uh, you didn't read the article. Everyone who gets into Harvard needs minimum academic proficiency to survive the place. Not that it's hard. As we U of Chicagoans are fair to quip, "the hardest part about Harvard is getting into Harvard"
3
The American way has often been to give someone a free pass, or at least a less bumpy ride, because s/he is white. And to give something very different to others.
That's just plain old historical truth. Whether or not that's enough to justify affirmative action is up to you. But facts are facts.
That's just plain old historical truth. Whether or not that's enough to justify affirmative action is up to you. But facts are facts.
3
The misapprehensions in the comments are so disquieting. Elite private universities admit need-blind; if your income is below X you already pay nothing, and financial aid (which a majority of students receive) is already incredibly generous, paid for by the endowments. Elite private universities' admissions offices know perfectly well that "merit" is not easy to quantify, and if they admitted students by a simple metric, GPAs and test scores, the results would please no one. Elite private universities have 20,000-plus applicants for about 2000 freshman slots. A place like Harvard has more perfect-GPA perfect-score applicants (in the thousands) than there are slots in the freshman class: are the perfect-score applicants the only ones they should consider? Thousands who are brilliant and could do the work are turned down, and those rejected thousands don't have any basis for grievance. Those are the numbers; the admissions process is complex.
45
"Need-blind" means nothing but for a family of 4 earning $125k-$280k a year, where elite private schools remain basically out-of-reach, unless you want to get into massive debt.
6
"Earning $125k-$280k" !!! ... and the problem is what?!... again. Have you not been keeping up with the wealth gap in this country. Sure, that's less than the top 1-percent but millions of Americans would welcome those earnings - with little thought about affording Harvard. Truthfully, that range still gets one aid at the heavily endowed schools.
2
Affirmative action: This should be looked at as compensation for Blacks for the years of Jim Crow. This lasted from the compromise of 1877 til 1965. During this time under segregation American law, Blacks were denied equal education and opportunity, as well as their voting rights. This was all illegal. Affirmative action was meant to remedy this by overcoming white hostility and racism in education and employment. In guaranteeing that Blacks should only be given preference in line with their overall percent of population, it can hardly be called reverse racism. Affirmative action should be the law of the land for a minimum 88 years, the same length of time that their rights were systematically denied.
Harvard is a private university to the extent that their programs are not publicly financed. They should set their own admissions policies, which have been liberal in recent years on the side of non-discrimination for race and religion. The lawmakers cited in this article should be looking at free admissions for public universities, which is easily doable. For example, Senator Sanders has proposed free tuition paid for by a small transaction tax on the trading on Wall Street. Given that this trading now is almost all plain old gambling, the same as state lotteries and casinos where the revenues go to schools, this is a good idea and should be passed. States could also easily do this by funding higher education as a defined percentage of their budgets every year.
Harvard is a private university to the extent that their programs are not publicly financed. They should set their own admissions policies, which have been liberal in recent years on the side of non-discrimination for race and religion. The lawmakers cited in this article should be looking at free admissions for public universities, which is easily doable. For example, Senator Sanders has proposed free tuition paid for by a small transaction tax on the trading on Wall Street. Given that this trading now is almost all plain old gambling, the same as state lotteries and casinos where the revenues go to schools, this is a good idea and should be passed. States could also easily do this by funding higher education as a defined percentage of their budgets every year.
15
Harvard receives millions of $ in government research grants each year, along with Stanford and many other private elite schools. They also do not pay property taxes on the land they sit on, and do not pay income tax for their endowment income. Taxpayers are essentially subsidizing each of these schools billions each year. If they truly want to be independent, pay the taxes and refuse the taxpayer funded research grants. Until then, they are not truly private and do not get to set their own admission criteria.
12
During the civil rights movement, the federal government used those arguments to force private colleges to integrate or else lose their taxpayer funded benefits. Naturally, the people in charge cared more about money than racism, so they agreed to integrate.
1
We still have lawyers in the south that are suing the US Govt for the 40 acres and a mule promised by William Tecumse Sherman during his march to the Atlantic Ocean.
Of course Harvard should be free. It should also include class as a category for affirmative action. It should aim for the best qualified student applicants as well as a diverse population that reflects the American population at large in terms of percentages. If Harvard can't figure out how to do that then it should no longer be considered the best university in the United States.
2
Thanks to Stephanie Saul for her story about this important issue. I write to provide readers additional information about endowment support for financial aid that I shared earlier but, probably due to length restrictions, was not included.
This financial aid program is largely made possible by Harvard’s endowment, a dedicated and permanent source of funding that supports the University’s teaching and research mission.
Made up of more than 12,000 individual funds invested as a single entity, a portion of the endowment’s annual proceeds is used to support Harvard’s leading financial aid programs, scientific research, and hundreds of professorships.
Any appreciation in excess of this annual distribution is retained in the endowment so it can grow and support future generations. As a result, the endowment will provide Harvard's financial foundation for generations to come.
The endowment supports research and teaching across the University, as well as the work of its scores of libraries, museums, and research centers.
Because endowment gifts are intended to benefit both current and future generations of students and scholars, Harvard is obligated to preserve the purchasing power of these gifts by spending only a small fraction of their value each year. Similarly, most donors designate a specific purpose for which their fund can be spent. At Harvard, more than 70 percent of endowed funds are subject to these restrictions.
- Jeff Neal, Harvard University spokesman
This financial aid program is largely made possible by Harvard’s endowment, a dedicated and permanent source of funding that supports the University’s teaching and research mission.
Made up of more than 12,000 individual funds invested as a single entity, a portion of the endowment’s annual proceeds is used to support Harvard’s leading financial aid programs, scientific research, and hundreds of professorships.
Any appreciation in excess of this annual distribution is retained in the endowment so it can grow and support future generations. As a result, the endowment will provide Harvard's financial foundation for generations to come.
The endowment supports research and teaching across the University, as well as the work of its scores of libraries, museums, and research centers.
Because endowment gifts are intended to benefit both current and future generations of students and scholars, Harvard is obligated to preserve the purchasing power of these gifts by spending only a small fraction of their value each year. Similarly, most donors designate a specific purpose for which their fund can be spent. At Harvard, more than 70 percent of endowed funds are subject to these restrictions.
- Jeff Neal, Harvard University spokesman
7
Jeff
Good spinning of a story how Harvard is looking out for all of mankind I suppose and doing God's work in the process but the cold reality is that American taxpayers are transferring wealth to Harvard and the top 1% by giving Harvard a tax exempt status and the contributors a tax deduction.
Good spinning of a story how Harvard is looking out for all of mankind I suppose and doing God's work in the process but the cold reality is that American taxpayers are transferring wealth to Harvard and the top 1% by giving Harvard a tax exempt status and the contributors a tax deduction.
13
Thank you. When a man (or woman) gives a pot of money to a school, he has a right to designate how it should be used. And, like it or not, institutions have the right to grow their endowments. Infringing on that right will likely do more harm than good.
2
Paul
Great. Have those rich contributors give the money but get no tax deduction and they can do whatever they want. Likewise the school has to claim it as taxable income and not serve as a tax shelter for the wealthy to throw around excess capital.
Taxpayers have the right to not be unknowingly funding some rich guy's contribution to get his name on a building or an endowment.
Great. Have those rich contributors give the money but get no tax deduction and they can do whatever they want. Likewise the school has to claim it as taxable income and not serve as a tax shelter for the wealthy to throw around excess capital.
Taxpayers have the right to not be unknowingly funding some rich guy's contribution to get his name on a building or an endowment.
My child recently graduated from Harvard. Everyone thinks Harvard tuition is "$100,000.00, right?" Biggest name, biggest tuition. It wasn't. Tuition was actually somewhat lower than the other Ivies, and Harvard is remarkably generous with tuition assistance. What amazed me as a parent over four years was how diverse students were at Harvard within their own personal, individual spheres ... incredible admixtures of ethnicities, races, religious beliefs, skills, outlooks. It is a world university of almost unimaginable variety. Anyone who tries to boil down a "typical" Harvard student to one particular trait misses the point of the Harvard admissions process altogether.
25
The same can be said of all public universities, each is a microcosm of multicultural America at large.
9
City college can beat it in every category.
4
Believe it or not, many college campuses are very diverse.
Harvard's just the institution that ostentatiously congratulates itself for being thus.
Harvard's just the institution that ostentatiously congratulates itself for being thus.
4
The discrimination against Asian candidates in school is real and very disturbing. The same "disparate impact" rulings that provide justification for anti-discrimination laws are ignored when it comes to Asian's applying to schools.
Where is the ACLU? Where are the progressive organizations?
Who speaks to the obvious fact that Asians have to get materially higher scores, grades and extra-curricular activities to have an equal chance with a person of ANY other color? This is blatant discrimination that was wrong when it was perpetuated on Jews in the mid 20th century and is even more wrong now.
I believe this is the issue that will make Asians realize that the Democrats simply take them for granted while not lifting a finger to right this travesty.
Where is the ACLU? Where are the progressive organizations?
Who speaks to the obvious fact that Asians have to get materially higher scores, grades and extra-curricular activities to have an equal chance with a person of ANY other color? This is blatant discrimination that was wrong when it was perpetuated on Jews in the mid 20th century and is even more wrong now.
I believe this is the issue that will make Asians realize that the Democrats simply take them for granted while not lifting a finger to right this travesty.
28
It's not just Harvard. Ask Lowell High School in San Francisco why Asian-Americans have to score higher on the entrance exam to get in?
6
Asians should reconsider the GOP, which, despite the democrats' claims, does not support preferential treatment based on identity. Merit and hard work are staples of conservative thinking.
4
The GOP would desire first that Asians be Asian-Americans with voter ID before going to the polls. And to return to topic: Harvard has dis-aggregated admissions data on Asians (International Students from Afghanistan, India, Vietnam, China, Japan etc) and Asian-Americans. The question is whether there is discrimination against Asian-Americans.
"Harvard ... is generous with financial aid, awarding more than $1.4 billion to undergraduates in the past decade"
OK, let's do the math. That's 140 million a year. With an endowment of 36 billion, that's 0,3% of the endowment per year. OK, I get that parts of the endowment may be earmarked for specific purposes, but 0,3% does not seem generous.
OK, let's do the math. That's 140 million a year. With an endowment of 36 billion, that's 0,3% of the endowment per year. OK, I get that parts of the endowment may be earmarked for specific purposes, but 0,3% does not seem generous.
8
Nor are undergraduates as a group, which was what was counted, even a majority of students who attend Harvard and are recipients of aid.
You don't eat away at capital if you want to preserve the scholarship process for the future.
You don't eat away at capital if you want to preserve the scholarship process for the future.
No matter what criteria are applied for admissions, one group or another will complain that they are getting the short end of the stick. And so the pendulum will continue to swing back and forth.
7
While we are talking about private and public universities, can some explain why community college exists? They were once post-secondary schools tasked with training rank and file white collar employees that doesn't need professional education (read: 4-year degree) in the same vein as trade schools but now they are nothing more than remedial high schools. All of their students don't met the conditions for high school diploma so all the classes at CCs are taught at the high school level. If students cannot meet high school graduation requirements, don't let them graduate.
The only reason seems to be to funnel "minority" students to 4-year college without going through the regular admission process. In case people don't know, many 4-year universities, including Ivys, have partnership with CCs to recruit minority students that graduated high school at below graduation standards. The students would spend 2 years at CC taking remedial classes and transfer full-credits, to 4-year university for their bachelor degrees. This come about after universities realized their straight-from-high-school-through-AA minorities are flunking out after a few semesters because they perform at high school level. Under the new scheme, the students are at high school graduates level when leaving CC and only have to endure 2 years of real college for a bachelor degree. It also wouldn't count as AA admission. They still would be sub-par graduates but at least they made it to graduation.
The only reason seems to be to funnel "minority" students to 4-year college without going through the regular admission process. In case people don't know, many 4-year universities, including Ivys, have partnership with CCs to recruit minority students that graduated high school at below graduation standards. The students would spend 2 years at CC taking remedial classes and transfer full-credits, to 4-year university for their bachelor degrees. This come about after universities realized their straight-from-high-school-through-AA minorities are flunking out after a few semesters because they perform at high school level. Under the new scheme, the students are at high school graduates level when leaving CC and only have to endure 2 years of real college for a bachelor degree. It also wouldn't count as AA admission. They still would be sub-par graduates but at least they made it to graduation.
7
Your whole augment is not true...your augment is full of falsehoods. Get your facts right.
2
Some of the best community colleges function essentially like trade schools, offering 2-year or less programs in needed concentrations - for example like medical technology, IT, graphic design, culinary, etc. Don't laugh when they actually get the $30+/hr jobs while the liberal arts 4-year college grads are making $9/hr as baristas.
7
I teach at a community college and my students can proofread better than you can.
12
In a world where we're struggling towards equality across races - how does discriminating among and against candidates to Harvard or any University based on race - represent fair play ?
I the early 1900's admission policies to elite educational institutions in the US was changed to reduce the number of Jewish students admitted. It does seem that over-achieving Asian students are the new Jews. An admissions policy at Harvard where every student has a chance based on academic credentials and achievements - that is Race Blind - seems to be the best way to ensure equality. This does mean taking income ( and wealth) as well as the alumni status of one's parents out of the mix. If that results in fewer members of any race of religious affiliation - so be it !
I the early 1900's admission policies to elite educational institutions in the US was changed to reduce the number of Jewish students admitted. It does seem that over-achieving Asian students are the new Jews. An admissions policy at Harvard where every student has a chance based on academic credentials and achievements - that is Race Blind - seems to be the best way to ensure equality. This does mean taking income ( and wealth) as well as the alumni status of one's parents out of the mix. If that results in fewer members of any race of religious affiliation - so be it !
18
Unfortunately, race / religious affiliation can often be determined by name. Perhaps there should be a truly "blind" admissions process whereby applicants are given a number.
bad politics and ingoring the facts ( like major scholarship initiatives..) lead to bad proposals like this one -- Eliot below covered it very well
It is not a purely quantifiable process -- the admissions -- at most private schools -- not should it be
800's don't guaranty admission -- nor should they
All "A"s don't guaranty it -- nor should they....
I will have to work to get my classmates to vote against this misguided proposal...
Perhaps all Valedictorians should sue the schools -- they are clearly underepresented....
It is not a purely quantifiable process -- the admissions -- at most private schools -- not should it be
800's don't guaranty admission -- nor should they
All "A"s don't guaranty it -- nor should they....
I will have to work to get my classmates to vote against this misguided proposal...
Perhaps all Valedictorians should sue the schools -- they are clearly underepresented....
2
Higher ed is out of control and it's no longer about education.
Higher ed institutions are exploiting and stealing from US citizens in a number of ways that needs to stop. Here is a list that colleges/universities do not want to talk about as they are corrupt. (Bernie Sanders please fix these outrages.)
1. Taking contributions that are a tax deduction for the contributor and shielding the money from US taxes thereby shifting a higher tax burden to the tax paying population that can least afford it.
2. Running admissions as a black box so they can eliminate candidates based on their biases (discrimination).
3. Taking out of state and out of country students as a preference over in state and in country students because out of state/country students pay much higher tuition. This is particularly outrageous as the parents/grandparents of these students have paid taxes to build/subsidize these colleges for centuries and they are getting thrown under the bus for an out of state/country student.
4. Running professional athletic programs under the guise of an amateur status with billion TV contracts and coaches earning millions/year while athletes are suckers/slaves and professors treated like 2nd class citizens.
5. Flunking out freshman at very high rates and taking perverse pride in doing so to prove they are a tough college.
6. Engaging in an arms race of bigger and more opulent buildings while dropping at least some of the costs onto tuition bills.
This is all indefensible.
Higher ed institutions are exploiting and stealing from US citizens in a number of ways that needs to stop. Here is a list that colleges/universities do not want to talk about as they are corrupt. (Bernie Sanders please fix these outrages.)
1. Taking contributions that are a tax deduction for the contributor and shielding the money from US taxes thereby shifting a higher tax burden to the tax paying population that can least afford it.
2. Running admissions as a black box so they can eliminate candidates based on their biases (discrimination).
3. Taking out of state and out of country students as a preference over in state and in country students because out of state/country students pay much higher tuition. This is particularly outrageous as the parents/grandparents of these students have paid taxes to build/subsidize these colleges for centuries and they are getting thrown under the bus for an out of state/country student.
4. Running professional athletic programs under the guise of an amateur status with billion TV contracts and coaches earning millions/year while athletes are suckers/slaves and professors treated like 2nd class citizens.
5. Flunking out freshman at very high rates and taking perverse pride in doing so to prove they are a tough college.
6. Engaging in an arms race of bigger and more opulent buildings while dropping at least some of the costs onto tuition bills.
This is all indefensible.
7
I don't really understand what the financial issue is. Many of the Ivy League schools, after financial aid, are very affordable. I know that my family received a 75% discount on total cost for my son's four years at Yale. My son (Yale '10) is biracial, but the aid was based on our family income.
11
Have your son show you all the aids and see is there any based on his race/ethnicity. Yeah, universities also grand financial aids base on race.
3
As a graduate of Harvard College (A.B. 1948. mcl PBK) I often wonder about the value of a college education. 45% of my education took place at my home and school before entering Harvard and 45% took place after I departed from Harvard.
Nonetheless I am a firm believer in Affirmative Action when it comes to admission to college. I find nothing unconstitutional about affirmative action. I do suggest, however, that Harvard should give more guidance to its students in choosing courses and careers. There's more to a college education than just plain vanilla teaching and lectures. Back in 1943 I had no guidance at all! But I'm not going to tell Harvard what to do: It's great with Drew Gilpin Faust at the helm.
PS: I wonder if Harvard will have a place for my Lithuanian-American-Chilean-Jewiish-Catholic-Muslim granddaughter in a few more years?
Nonetheless I am a firm believer in Affirmative Action when it comes to admission to college. I find nothing unconstitutional about affirmative action. I do suggest, however, that Harvard should give more guidance to its students in choosing courses and careers. There's more to a college education than just plain vanilla teaching and lectures. Back in 1943 I had no guidance at all! But I'm not going to tell Harvard what to do: It's great with Drew Gilpin Faust at the helm.
PS: I wonder if Harvard will have a place for my Lithuanian-American-Chilean-Jewiish-Catholic-Muslim granddaughter in a few more years?
3
Rather than discriminate against students based on race or ethnicity, which is banned by the Civil Rights Act, Harvard should set minimum admission standards and conduct an admissions lottery. Over time, the students selected by lottery will match the demographics of the applicant pool.
6
Wouldn't you need at least 50 pools - one each for every instrument in the college orchestra?
Admission might be free someday, but the calls for contributions will be asking for a lot more.
2
Folks, there is a difference between highly selective universities and competitive admission in the selection process. Harvard, like all other highly selective schools, "select" the students they want to offer admission to among many, many students who could get in. However, you can't admit everyone because of the size of the first-year class. Some students will lose out in all racial categories. Asian-American students are not underrepresented on most highly selective campuses whereas other racial groups are. Highly selective schools "build" a class! Competitive admission schools usually use a different process of looking at students with the highest grades, class ranks and standardized test scores. Their admission is usually based on quantitative information only. All is not equal in life, nor is it equal in the admission process, and it is not called affirmative action!
9
One gets a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Unz has some other agenda here besides "fairness".
12
An irony of the SCOTUS case: if affirmative action falls, and places like Harvard have to accept all the qualified Asians who rank at the top academically, then many more Caucasians will be rejected from Harvard. I wonder if conservatives would be happy with that scenario.
6
The reply to that is, with race-bind admissions, if you really want to go to Harvard (or Berkeley or any other place) and you are noticing that a disproportionate number of Asians seem to be being admitted, you will just have to work harder to compete with the those Asians. Make no mistake, they work hard too.
The shame in college admissions is the affirmative action for the children of celebrities, the powerful, and the super rich.
The shame in college admissions is the affirmative action for the children of celebrities, the powerful, and the super rich.
12
You're mistaken. The GOP would encourage educational improvement and greater accountability. Just as it always does.
1
I believe there's nothing wrong with Harvard or any other university using race to ensure a more diverse student body. Historical populations of minorities in this country, Native Americans, African Americans should out of fairness have a better chance to get into these schools than Asians. Asians are already well over-represented in most colleges as it is. The more important issue here is not even who gets into college but how to make it AFFORDABLE to middle class and lower families.
7
Should the NFL also be required to draft small uncoordinated people etc. that have historically not been allowed to participate?
16
Thanks to Stephanie Saul for her story about this important issue. I write to provide readers additional information about Harvard College tuition and financial aid that I shared earlier but, probably due to length restrictions, was not included:
Through Harvard College’s generous, need-based, loan-free financial aid program, every undergraduate has the opportunity to graduate debt-free, regardless of their financial circumstances. Over the past decade, Harvard has awarded undergraduates $1.4 billion in financial aid.
One in five undergraduate families pays nothing for tuition, room, and board because their annual income is $65,000 or less. At higher income levels, families pay between zero and 10 percent of their annual income for tuition, room, and board (for example, $12,000 for a family with $120,000 a year in income and typical assets).
Nearly 60 percent of Harvard College families receive grant aid, paying on average $12,000 per year for the cost of tuition, room, board and fees combined.
Today, a Harvard College education costs the same or less than a state school for 90 percent of American families, based on their income and because of Harvard’s financial aid.
- Jeff Neal, Harvard University spokesman
Through Harvard College’s generous, need-based, loan-free financial aid program, every undergraduate has the opportunity to graduate debt-free, regardless of their financial circumstances. Over the past decade, Harvard has awarded undergraduates $1.4 billion in financial aid.
One in five undergraduate families pays nothing for tuition, room, and board because their annual income is $65,000 or less. At higher income levels, families pay between zero and 10 percent of their annual income for tuition, room, and board (for example, $12,000 for a family with $120,000 a year in income and typical assets).
Nearly 60 percent of Harvard College families receive grant aid, paying on average $12,000 per year for the cost of tuition, room, board and fees combined.
Today, a Harvard College education costs the same or less than a state school for 90 percent of American families, based on their income and because of Harvard’s financial aid.
- Jeff Neal, Harvard University spokesman
14
I wonder at Mx Saul dwelling at such length on the past advocacy of the plaintiffs, especially regarding so-called "affirmative action". May we now hope that the next time some person is quoted in the NY times on some agenda-driven article, that instead of labeling them a "student" or a "resident" or an "activist", that you will tell us every radical cause they have been involved in since their salad days with the Committee to Extend Recess?
6
Let's talk about under-privileged. Is Chinatown, NY and Flushing, Queens ghettos? You can buy a phloem of bananas for less in Chinatown and Flushing then in Jamaica, Queens or Harlem, NY. The Big Mac in Flushing is cheaper than a Big Mac in Jamaica or Belmont, Bronx. The streets are definitely dirtier and roads more potholed in Chinatown and Flushing. Why is it then that Chinatown and Flushing sent substantially more kids to Ivys and state universities? Shouldn't their under-privileged upbring means they couldn't get into college?
The very idea that financially disadvantaged = educationally disadvantaged is a lie that have no basis in facts. Irish arrived in America femished and in a generation or two achieved "middle-class". Jews were the poorest New Yorker at the turn of the 20th century and yet they filled CUNY & SUNY in record numbers (at that time Ivys don't admit Jews). Chinatown and Flushing are definitely ghettos but being poor doesn't stop the thirst for knowledge. In fact, it arguably makes it stronger.
What Harvard and other Ivys are doing is look at those Asians, be them "privileged" or not, and simply say we don't take Asians just like they used to exclude Catholics, Jews and women. The only difference is that rule is now kept secret.
The very idea that financially disadvantaged = educationally disadvantaged is a lie that have no basis in facts. Irish arrived in America femished and in a generation or two achieved "middle-class". Jews were the poorest New Yorker at the turn of the 20th century and yet they filled CUNY & SUNY in record numbers (at that time Ivys don't admit Jews). Chinatown and Flushing are definitely ghettos but being poor doesn't stop the thirst for knowledge. In fact, it arguably makes it stronger.
What Harvard and other Ivys are doing is look at those Asians, be them "privileged" or not, and simply say we don't take Asians just like they used to exclude Catholics, Jews and women. The only difference is that rule is now kept secret.
23
i would not describe Flushing as a "ghetto".... it is probably one of the best places to live out side Manhattan.
Take that word "race" off of the application. It is disgusting to have it there.
26
The Unz candidates' platform is wrong on both counts.
Harvard already provides full need-based financial aid, without loans. This is well-publicized anywhere that high school students seek information. The same is true of Princeton, UChicago and other elite colleges. Anyone qualified for admission to Harvard is surely already aware of its generous financial aid program.
Asian-Americans, contrary to claims, are actually over-represented in the student body; their percentage among admitted students (20%) far exceeds their share of the population. If they are under-represented among those admitted with a certain level of SAT scores, nobody should seriously expect Harvard and its peers to disregard the other factors in their successful holistic admissions processes. Harvard students, alumni and hopefuls advocating for greater admission of Asian-Americans should stop to think about the impact of the acceptance criteria they advocate: Harvard would cease to be the place they prize so highly.
Harvard's magic depends on many factors that cannot be quantified, and the reality of choosing among some 35,000 applicants for about 2,000 slots means that there is no objective way to identify the "most qualified". Harvard students and alums should get over themselves: they know better than anyone that admission to Harvard is not quite the validation that the rest of the world may attach to the Harvard brand.
I write as an alum whose child was recently denied admission.
Harvard already provides full need-based financial aid, without loans. This is well-publicized anywhere that high school students seek information. The same is true of Princeton, UChicago and other elite colleges. Anyone qualified for admission to Harvard is surely already aware of its generous financial aid program.
Asian-Americans, contrary to claims, are actually over-represented in the student body; their percentage among admitted students (20%) far exceeds their share of the population. If they are under-represented among those admitted with a certain level of SAT scores, nobody should seriously expect Harvard and its peers to disregard the other factors in their successful holistic admissions processes. Harvard students, alumni and hopefuls advocating for greater admission of Asian-Americans should stop to think about the impact of the acceptance criteria they advocate: Harvard would cease to be the place they prize so highly.
Harvard's magic depends on many factors that cannot be quantified, and the reality of choosing among some 35,000 applicants for about 2,000 slots means that there is no objective way to identify the "most qualified". Harvard students and alums should get over themselves: they know better than anyone that admission to Harvard is not quite the validation that the rest of the world may attach to the Harvard brand.
I write as an alum whose child was recently denied admission.
45
@Elliot,
Considering your next to last sentence, I hope and trust that my reply will be taken in the spirit of what you said.
When I consider Harvard, both Oxford and Cambridge Universities in England as well as the Sorbonne in France, especially having experienced both of the English schools as a student and a tourist, it really underscores the truth of what you've said. Speaking only for myself, I've yet to observe a single English person or anyone across the pond express special reverence for Harvard. And, I've never brought it up. Not once.
1-14-16@5:40 pm est
Considering your next to last sentence, I hope and trust that my reply will be taken in the spirit of what you said.
When I consider Harvard, both Oxford and Cambridge Universities in England as well as the Sorbonne in France, especially having experienced both of the English schools as a student and a tourist, it really underscores the truth of what you've said. Speaking only for myself, I've yet to observe a single English person or anyone across the pond express special reverence for Harvard. And, I've never brought it up. Not once.
1-14-16@5:40 pm est
3
I have never heard a more self serving phrase which means nothing than holistic admissions process. It is just the modern version of the claims of wanting well rounded students which was used to limit the number of qualified Jewish students 70 years ago.
3
Harvard, Oxbridge, Stanford, Yale and MIT are always ranked as top schools in the world. The British are as aware of the top Ivies as we are of Oxbridge.
1
Stanford allows it Education students free rides if they commit to public service for 5 years after graduating. I think they do this for the Law School, too, but I'm not sure.
Business students don't get this perk bc they will graduate and make lots of money most likely.
I really think what Mr. Unz is doing is full of baloney. These esteemed schools know what they're doing.
BTW, a few years ago, UC Berkeley's student population had 37$ Asians when the US population of Asians was only 3%.
Business students don't get this perk bc they will graduate and make lots of money most likely.
I really think what Mr. Unz is doing is full of baloney. These esteemed schools know what they're doing.
BTW, a few years ago, UC Berkeley's student population had 37$ Asians when the US population of Asians was only 3%.
4
How bout this? Since I did NOT get into Harvard, why doesn't Harvard pay for my kids to attend private school, so they stand a chance of getting into Harvard. If my kids can get into Harvard, I'll pay (after they pay for private prep school). I do not yet have kids.
Harvard should keep charging tuition, but pay for every kid in America to attend private school.
Harvard should keep charging tuition, but pay for every kid in America to attend private school.
1
I believe the vast majority of Harvard kids have not gone to private school.
4
True dat. I knew a slew of kids from Rindge who went to Harvard, but I also knew a bunch of kids from Andover, Commonwealth, Milton, Exeter, Concord, and Middlesex who went there.
My dad, who went to Yale, attended Lawrenceville. My grandfather attended Harvard, but I don't know where he went to prep school. Wheeler?
My dad, who went to Yale, attended Lawrenceville. My grandfather attended Harvard, but I don't know where he went to prep school. Wheeler?
Soooo whites and Asians are opposed to race-based admission except when it benefits them. Got it.
10
@Lynn in DC,
That's a pretty good comment.
My eyebrows went up when I saw the $37.6 billion endowment and they went even higher when I saw the $45 k per year tuition.
Oxford and Cambridge Universities in England don't charge that much.
1-14-16@5:24 pm est
That's a pretty good comment.
My eyebrows went up when I saw the $37.6 billion endowment and they went even higher when I saw the $45 k per year tuition.
Oxford and Cambridge Universities in England don't charge that much.
1-14-16@5:24 pm est
1
Both requests sound reasonable to me. The formula for admissions decisions can only help prospective students, and it's long since time to raid those huge endowment forms. Sweet Briar found a way, isn't Harvard supposed to be the real smart school? And yeah, a lot of those funds are restricted, say, to kids of a certain nationality or who have an ancestor who, say, fought in the American Revolution. Why should that matter? Fifty years ago, the courts stripped the whites-only clause from Stephen Girard's trust under his will in Philadelphia and allowed black kids into his school, about time we scrubbed this sort of clause from endowments and trusts. That would make it easy to use the endowment money for trusts. Harvard owns half of Cambridge OUTSIDE of its campus, thanks to them. They need to put out some cash to poor kids.
2
Harvard has already adopted what SS from Memphis is proposing; that is precisely how financial aid (and there are no loans) is awarded. The lack of understanding of how the Ivies in fact operate is the apparent cause of most of the negative comments. Harvard alum who have careers in social work, education, legal aid for those who can't afford it, Doctors Without Borders, etc etc do not have the lucrative careers so many incorrectly just assume they have. The underestimating of the societal benefits of students of different cultures living and learning is stunning.
5
There are some people suggesting here that they rid 'legacy' as a condition of acceptance. This will never happen, ever. The large sums of money handed over to Harvard from alumni guarantees this into perpetuity.
8
Agreed. They preach diversity, as long as it's away from their hallowed halls.
Harvard is a community (I say this having no children) and as such it is appropriate to allow a tiny plus for family ties when it comes time to score admissions candidates. However, nowadays very bright and high-scoring children of alumni are routinely rejected --the huge number of candidates from around the world has sharpened competition so much that legacy privilege has been hugely eroded.
1
If Harvard is free, the rest of the Ivy League will follow suit. That will put pressure on the top-tier colleges and universities that compete for these students. And on down
2
What does that do to colleges that actually rely on tuition income to stay in business, say small liberal arts schools? They may say they are better, but we prove every day that better can't compete with free. Look it up on Wikipedia ...
1
Harvard and the other institutions are in a league of their own in terms of resources when compared to the great majority of colleges/universities. Harvard and these other top institutions have not increased their enrollment despite the U.S. population increase and increased admittance of international students. These institutions receive applications from many more qualified applicants than they are able to accommodate. I propose that in order to serve as many potential students from as many backgrounds as possible while still being fair that these top institutions pick their students by lottery. The school would establish minimum requirements and any that met those requirements would be able to put their name in the lottery. That way all groups would potentially be able to benefit from the resources and good fortune of these elite schools while eliminating the rancor involved in issues such as affirmative action and legacy admissions.
1
I don't really care what Harvard does. But every state should have one public four-year university that is free for in-state students who can meet academic and character qualifications.
13
Why the constant discussion that tuition is too high for college?
In my state of Virginia and county of Fairfax, we have a community college that students can attend for two years, and from there, the students can transfer to a college of choice from among the state's public four-year colleges. The savings provided by this route to four-year institutions are substantial, and I would think this opportunity to lower tuition is true across the country.
But on the larger question of high college tuition. Colleges provide needs-based assistance, and which can be supplemented by loans. But if the loan amounts are high after graduation, that should not be alarming, because a college education is an investment, just like borrowing money to start a business.
The student debt "crisis" may not be that real, after we consider the fact that the debt is largely a burden for those who failed to complete college. For those who graduated, the debt is simply the cost of doing business.
In my state of Virginia and county of Fairfax, we have a community college that students can attend for two years, and from there, the students can transfer to a college of choice from among the state's public four-year colleges. The savings provided by this route to four-year institutions are substantial, and I would think this opportunity to lower tuition is true across the country.
But on the larger question of high college tuition. Colleges provide needs-based assistance, and which can be supplemented by loans. But if the loan amounts are high after graduation, that should not be alarming, because a college education is an investment, just like borrowing money to start a business.
The student debt "crisis" may not be that real, after we consider the fact that the debt is largely a burden for those who failed to complete college. For those who graduated, the debt is simply the cost of doing business.
1
Our super expensive college education (and healthcare) puts the the US at a serious disadvantage in the global marketplace for labor. Having said that, I think that the idea of free tuition catching on recent political campaigns is at best a distraction and at worst could send colleges into a downward spiral. What is needed are tuition caps so that colleges don't have a blank check to charge and spend as they please. On the other side, financial aid should be made available to students based on their financial situation. This should be further strengthened by tying state and federal funds directly to tuition financial aid.
1
Harvard should not be hoarding its endowment. The endowment should be taxed and distributed to other schools. Typical liberal elitism. Does Harvard pay taxes on the gains on its endowment? Nope. They take taxpayer money. They pay no taxes and they charge confiscatory rates to students.
1
What taxpayer money fo they take ??
students who cannot afford do not pay anything -- those who can -- do
It is not hoarding to support major programs in undergradate educationm, Law, Medicine ETC ..
The European community is green with envy with our colleges -- and our success in getting people to contribute to support educatiion.... and as a result their schools havbe suffered greatly -- except for Oxford and Cambridge -- which -- wow -- do have endowments!!!
students who cannot afford do not pay anything -- those who can -- do
It is not hoarding to support major programs in undergradate educationm, Law, Medicine ETC ..
The European community is green with envy with our colleges -- and our success in getting people to contribute to support educatiion.... and as a result their schools havbe suffered greatly -- except for Oxford and Cambridge -- which -- wow -- do have endowments!!!
1
Yes, Harvard should be free for those who can't afford it, which is almost everybody. It is hard enough for poor students to rent an apartment or dorm room and pay for food. The poor should be subsidized for this, too. My daughter worked 16 hour shifts sometimes to get through Yale, and still had student loans. Now Yale gives full scholarships, no loans to people in our income bracket.
This is what Harvard does also.
Mr Unz is right. If Harvard does not discriminate against Asian-Americans, the school should be transparent and disclose the average SAT and GPA scores of their incoming white and Asian freshmen.
Elite schools that discriminate against the best and the brightest students to admit the predominantly white children of the wealthy and powerful risk becoming a second-rate institution over time.
Elite schools that discriminate against the best and the brightest students to admit the predominantly white children of the wealthy and powerful risk becoming a second-rate institution over time.
10
Since when have board scores been proved to be the sine qua non for personal excellence and achievement? I believe the studies lean the other way. Whereas grading varies by school.
2
The University of California - Berkley, which is ranked by U.S. News as one of the top 20 colleges and has race blind admissions - is 47% Asian. Most Asian-American students strongly suspect that the "holistic" admission process the elite colleges claim to use is simply a cover-up to keep their schools majority white.
1
Some of Princeton's alumni proposed this a dozen years ago, having done the math that Princeton's endowments were generating revenue far beyond what tuition brought in. And my understanding is that Princeton is now not free, but hugely more affordable than the other Ivies. Harvard sort of matched Princeton, but not really.
The schools that can afford free tuition have a moral obligation to do just that. None will until Harvard or Princeton or Stanford makes a stand. Then they'll all have to, or become second-rate.
The schools that can afford free tuition have a moral obligation to do just that. None will until Harvard or Princeton or Stanford makes a stand. Then they'll all have to, or become second-rate.
All most all students who apply to Harvard can do the work. So the question is not one of ability. The question is then one of access. Who should have access to the resources and network that is Harvard? Who should have access when the supply of qualified applicants far far exceeds capacity? To say that a student with a ten or twenty point higher SAT score or 35 instead of 33 on the ACT score is better is not backed up by empirical assessment. Much of the debate that we see today comes from people who believe that a single test score is the best predictor of success. This is fanciful. How many times did the student take the test? What test prep service did they use? How many extra hours did they study? (And note each of these requires a trade-off in developing other skills and has a financial cost). All these tests can be gamed. In a long career in business and academia, I can tell you that being the "smartest" in the room based on such a test is not the same as being successful or having the skills for success.. Other traits matter once a person has a certain intellectual capacity. Persistence is the trait that shows up most anecdotally and empirically.
Here is an interesting solution: use the $billions to increase capacity instead of measuring "eliteness" by how many equally qualified students are denied admission.
Here is an interesting solution: use the $billions to increase capacity instead of measuring "eliteness" by how many equally qualified students are denied admission.
8
I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting, but one way Harvard and other elite colleges have increased capacity is to generate MOOCs. That is, free, online courses, generally adapted from courses taught at Harvard etc. Those courses are available to anyone.
2
Agreed but shouldn't the playing field re high school grades also be considered? Wh should those who received As from underperforming schools be favorably compared to students from schools with rigorous curricula?
1
So if endowment money must be spent on very specific endeavors, does this not mean that the endowers control Harvard's direction? Also, if only 4% of the endowment can be spent per year, then what is the rest of the endowment money doing? Just sitting around, earning interest, instead of being used for faculty salaries and such? It seems like this money would be better off cycling through the economy than sitting around making its donors happy that their pet projects will still be funded in the year 2525.
Yes, they do. it was their money to begin with, and if they wanted it directed to specific purposes, they had every right to do so and to expect that their wishes will be adhered to. If I give the SPCA money to build a new shelter and they spend it on something else, no matter how worthy the other project may be, they have violated their agreement with me.
He that pays the piper, calls the tune.
He that pays the piper, calls the tune.
3
Yep. Like, say, cannibalizing Allston, until it all went belly up for awhile. It might be back on track for the win now, i'm not sure.
http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-endowment-losses-destroy-town-200...
http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-endowment-losses-destroy-town-200...
The endowments are increasing through unrealized to gain. For example, one may own an office building in Boston bought in 1970 for a paltry sum, that is now worth a mint. The actual income, the rents less expenses are almost certainly distributed. There are tax consequences if you don't. But because these tend to be invested in long term investments like land, they tend to own assets worth considerably more than what was paid for them. The difficulty is, they never sell them, or if they do, they reinvest in a similar asset to avoid tax consequences. I think it is time to extend the rule against perpetuity to this sort of trust. That would limit them to roughly 110 years.
"Should Harvard be free?"
Nope.
Granted, it was much cheaper when I went there (1971-74, Law, $2,100-$2,400 a year tuition). And I'd love to pay nothing if one of my sons goes there.
But I won't pay nothing, and I shouldn't. I can afford to pay. Others can't. Maybe Harvard could charge no tuition forever, but something else would have to be cut, and that "something else" would be something I could afford to pay for but others couldn't.
I'd leave it just the way it is. As one economist joked, Harvard should set tuition at $1 billion a year and then give everyone except Bill Gates' kid a "special price." That's obviously an exaggeration, but the point is nevertheless clear and valid.
I have no problem paying more for Harvard than some parent who makes a lot less money. (Now if I can just get one of my sons admitted.)
Nope.
Granted, it was much cheaper when I went there (1971-74, Law, $2,100-$2,400 a year tuition). And I'd love to pay nothing if one of my sons goes there.
But I won't pay nothing, and I shouldn't. I can afford to pay. Others can't. Maybe Harvard could charge no tuition forever, but something else would have to be cut, and that "something else" would be something I could afford to pay for but others couldn't.
I'd leave it just the way it is. As one economist joked, Harvard should set tuition at $1 billion a year and then give everyone except Bill Gates' kid a "special price." That's obviously an exaggeration, but the point is nevertheless clear and valid.
I have no problem paying more for Harvard than some parent who makes a lot less money. (Now if I can just get one of my sons admitted.)
71
Please do not water down admissions standards for elite universities.
We*re already seeing the results on campuses everywhere. Even at the Ivies, an astounding number of students cannot handle freshman English and math without dissolving in a hysterical jelly.
And stop whining about legacy admissions. Alumni support many important facilities at institutions meaningful to them.
It*s the public institutions we should be turning our attention to, supporting, improving, raising standards at, ensuring access to. When it came time to decide which college my own child would go to, our final decision was largely based on the financial aid offer we received. It was astonishing to realize that the Ivy he eventually went to was more affordable, because of that aid, than the NYS universities at which we were entitled to the in-state tuition. Room and board costs raised the out-of-pocket cost higher than what we paid for the Ivy, all told.
There*s nothing wrong with merit-based standards with legacy exceptions. Give everyone something to strive towards. Give those of lesser abilities suitable environments for success. Make sure there*s a suitable place for everyone.
We*re already seeing the results on campuses everywhere. Even at the Ivies, an astounding number of students cannot handle freshman English and math without dissolving in a hysterical jelly.
And stop whining about legacy admissions. Alumni support many important facilities at institutions meaningful to them.
It*s the public institutions we should be turning our attention to, supporting, improving, raising standards at, ensuring access to. When it came time to decide which college my own child would go to, our final decision was largely based on the financial aid offer we received. It was astonishing to realize that the Ivy he eventually went to was more affordable, because of that aid, than the NYS universities at which we were entitled to the in-state tuition. Room and board costs raised the out-of-pocket cost higher than what we paid for the Ivy, all told.
There*s nothing wrong with merit-based standards with legacy exceptions. Give everyone something to strive towards. Give those of lesser abilities suitable environments for success. Make sure there*s a suitable place for everyone.
8
It would be wonderful if Harvard were free--assuming it can afford to be. And it's hard not to conclude that they discriminate against Asian-Americans if you compare the composition of their student body to those of UCLA and UC Berkeley, which are both over 40% Asian-American. (Of course, some of this has to do with California's demographics. But a lot of the Asian kids who attend these school also apply to the Ivy League.) But Harvard, like other private universities and some pubic ones, employs all kinds of unfair if not unethical admissions criteria. And I'm not talking about affirmative action, which produces social benefits. I'm talking instead about the advantages conferred to legacies, athletes, private school graduates and "development cases," i.e., children of the super-rich. I'm sympathetic to Asian-Americans who feel that it's harder for their kids to get into elite private schools than it is for white kids. But the larger question is why these schools are allowed to continue contributing to all kinds of inequities. 38% of the 2017 class at Harvard went to private school. If you brought that number into line with the percentage of students in private school nationwide, which is 10%, you would see a big jump in Asian-American admissions, since most of those kids go to public schools. But it would also increase fairness for applicants across the board.
6
Like some other commentators, I, an alumna, do not give to Harvard. Its generous financial aid and outreach to those whom it defines as as minority or disadvantaged insures that only those with financially successful parents pay full freight, not withstanding their academic merit.
I am unfailingly and strongly opposed to affirmative action which singles out people on the basis of biology for special treatment. And only the naive believe that Asians have not benefitted by it.
There are many,many,many academic programs which are available for smart kids from economically failed or socially dysfunctional families that are unavailable to the hard working and socially adjusted children of the parents who are financially successful. Those who have a hard row to hoe today are white, middle and upper middle class males who are heterosexual.
I am unfailingly and strongly opposed to affirmative action which singles out people on the basis of biology for special treatment. And only the naive believe that Asians have not benefitted by it.
There are many,many,many academic programs which are available for smart kids from economically failed or socially dysfunctional families that are unavailable to the hard working and socially adjusted children of the parents who are financially successful. Those who have a hard row to hoe today are white, middle and upper middle class males who are heterosexual.
8
Was Unz deliberately photographed wearing a Stanford tee shirt?
Instead of all of us worrying about the 1000 kids that get into Harvard we should worry about the thousands that do not and improve their education. The public universities are excellent. Make them affordable. The irony is that the same conservative philosophy that wants Harvard to make tuition free wants to cut funding for public universities. They really want the elite to continue ruling and reduce opportunity for the masses.
290
Harvard is a private university can admit whomever it likes as long as they don't violate applicable laws.
3
If Harvard wants to operate without any public input, it's free to forego it exempt status.
2
https://twitter.com/liveinkreading/status/687738186441691136 The NewSAT will have more reading and will discriminate against dyslexics and other reading disabilities, such as low vision.
1
Maybe what the country needs is a tuition trust fund for about a hundred good colleges so that the children of the non-rich have a fair shot at attending them too. The bizarre and destructive custom of burying non-rich college students in debt must end.
3
I'm all for free tuition, in theory. But as ever, the devil is in the details. Just for starters - is that "tuition" money going to the schools going to be on the backs of evermore underpaid adjuncts, while the lion's share of the money goes to rock star profs teaching one course a semester, more overpaid administrators, and feeding the never-ending lust for new buildings?
Something i think Sanders needs to address at some point - say you actually find the funding via taxes on trades, what kinds of checks and balances, or stipulations will he place on funding?
Also, if it seems like a mess with race-based admission policy, wait till the proverbial hits the fan over what immigration status criteria for free tuition is.
Something i think Sanders needs to address at some point - say you actually find the funding via taxes on trades, what kinds of checks and balances, or stipulations will he place on funding?
Also, if it seems like a mess with race-based admission policy, wait till the proverbial hits the fan over what immigration status criteria for free tuition is.
There is nothing stopping you and the millions of others who believe that this would be a good idea from starting just that with your own money. The donors who gave their money to Harvard or other colleges did so in many cases with a specific purpose in mind and that is the only thing that money should be used for.
3
We should end the RACIAL affirmative action and replace it with one based on merit and poor background. Right now the son of a rich African-American or Spanish lawyer gets free pass before a poor white kid who can be a first-generation immigrant or even an immigrant or from a very poor family. It's ridiculous.
18
Poor white kids has a better chance at assimilation than black and brown kids of any economic background. No stop and frisk for him either.
1
I wouldn't be too concerned about Harvard's tuition. It's graduates will have lucrative employment opportunities--enough to pay off loans.
Regarding affirmative action, universities have obligations to serve society. These obligations can include training future physicists who score highest on SAT exams, but also physicians who would be willing to serve in underprivileged areas (perhaps helping our vets). Highest SAT scores may not be the best way to choose the latter.
Regarding affirmative action, universities have obligations to serve society. These obligations can include training future physicists who score highest on SAT exams, but also physicians who would be willing to serve in underprivileged areas (perhaps helping our vets). Highest SAT scores may not be the best way to choose the latter.
6
This is only true for science, engineering and finance students. A degree in English, for example, will hardly give you a middle class job.
1
No. If you think about it, you want the very best and brightest (highest SAT scores included) as doctors, airline pilots - any field where lives are on the line. You drop the bar for majors and jobs where empathy and emotional intelligence are important but no lives are at risk. A diverse oncologist with an excellent bedside manner who misses your cancer until it is untreatable, is not the goal.
2
Well, I don't know about the lucrative stuff. I know one Harvard Law grad, got a government job promotion seven years ago, he's out of job next year. Likely never work again and go on a pension at 55. Wow.
1
My very cynical view is this: Republicans realize that highly educated citizens are less likely to be swayed by Republican voodoo economics and other mumbo jumbo than those who are less educated. They also believe that colleges are a bastion of left-leaning faculty and students. As a consequence, they want to jeopardize American education. First they went after K-12 education, repeatedly cutting school budgets. Now they are going after universities - just look at Scott Walker in Wisconsin. The damage this does to our nation is dismaying, and will have severe repercussions for our future competitiveness.
14
The reality is that the admissions criteria is so tough, by and large no poor or working class white, black, Hispanic or Asian kid has much a chance getting into Harvard because the upper middle class and the rich white, black, Hispanic and Asian kids are the ones who get accepted, because they've had the advantage of private school systems, living in expensive neighborhoods with good school systems, tutoring for the SAT etc.
As a result, it really doesn't matter whether the tuition at Harvard is free or not, because poor and working class undergraduate students of any race have virtually no chance of being admitted.
Only when Harvard parental-income-tests a substantial portion of its applicants who have far lower SAT scores would the admissions process be "fair".
As a result, it really doesn't matter whether the tuition at Harvard is free or not, because poor and working class undergraduate students of any race have virtually no chance of being admitted.
Only when Harvard parental-income-tests a substantial portion of its applicants who have far lower SAT scores would the admissions process be "fair".
11
The liberals' logic of higher income = better test results fall flat on its face when you look at the poor asian kids from Chinatown who excel in NYC's most selective high schools. People are not born equal. Some are taller, some are better looking, some have blonde hair, some have green eyes, some are better singers/musicians/artists/athletes, and yes, some are just plain smarter. Liberals can accept all of the above except some are born smarter, they prefer to attribute it all to the environment and income. Get over it! Kids who do better academically are smarter and work harder, period.
3
lots of asian kids make it into harvard - 3x the national population, so they are already over-represented nationally. In the lawsuit, the families that are suing Harvard are arguing this number is low based on the success rates of asians in highschool, which is even higher.
3
Why would Harvard want students "who have far lower SAT scores"?
5
Excellent article. No where is the hypocrisy of the left shown more glaringly than in the issues of endowments and affirmative action.
When it comes to AA, Harvard(and co.) is all about equality, they insist that AA remains necessary because the playing fields are not yet equal therefore certain "under represented minority groups" deserve a leg up on other candidates. But when it comes to Endowment funds suddenly equality is out the window. Here Harvard is perfectly happy to horde all it can and be the richest 0.01%, they have zero interest in sharing those funds and making our colleges more equal.
It's time to make these race/class obsessed champagne socialists walk the talk on equality. All donations of over $1M to private colleges that have an endowment of $1B or more should be taxed as capital gains at 20%, and their endowment income should also be taxed at corporate tax rate, especially since they insist that as private institutions they should be free to admit whoever they want to admit. The tax revenue collected should then be distributed among the nation's top flagship universities, 2 per state.
Alternatively, since Harvard & co. are always boasting about how they could replace the entire freshman class with the next 2 cohorts of applicants and they'd still be equally qualified, they could simply offer free tuition to those who are on their waiting list but eventually turned away due to lack of space, so they can attend another college completely free.
When it comes to AA, Harvard(and co.) is all about equality, they insist that AA remains necessary because the playing fields are not yet equal therefore certain "under represented minority groups" deserve a leg up on other candidates. But when it comes to Endowment funds suddenly equality is out the window. Here Harvard is perfectly happy to horde all it can and be the richest 0.01%, they have zero interest in sharing those funds and making our colleges more equal.
It's time to make these race/class obsessed champagne socialists walk the talk on equality. All donations of over $1M to private colleges that have an endowment of $1B or more should be taxed as capital gains at 20%, and their endowment income should also be taxed at corporate tax rate, especially since they insist that as private institutions they should be free to admit whoever they want to admit. The tax revenue collected should then be distributed among the nation's top flagship universities, 2 per state.
Alternatively, since Harvard & co. are always boasting about how they could replace the entire freshman class with the next 2 cohorts of applicants and they'd still be equally qualified, they could simply offer free tuition to those who are on their waiting list but eventually turned away due to lack of space, so they can attend another college completely free.
7
Your post illustrates that you're not familiar with Harvard's policies. Actually, Harvard spends millions every year supporting students who cannot afford the cost of tuition and room/board. They accept students 'need blind' and make sure everyone has money to attend and not lots of debt at the end. The amount given to each student is prorated depending on what the family earns, but can be free for those who make very little (i.e. tens of thousands of dollars per poor family).
In our Nexus Research and Policy Study, found at www.nexusresearch.org , we suggest a potentially more useful alternative to addressing the issue of big endowments and needy students: An excise tax on endowments over $500 million that would be used, through a revenue neutral charitable tax credit mechanism, to provide selected community colleges with the resources needed for them to apply proven, effective programs that can lead to improved student success. We believe this is a much better way to increase student success than either a tuition-free Harvard or the so-called free community college schemes being discussed today.
4
Really Jorge? - the solution is to create a new bureaucracy which will rob me of the right to decide where to put my charitable donations to work by taxing the recipient of my largesse?! If, for whatever reason, I decide to add to my alma mater's admittedly staggering endowment, then that is where I want my money to go, not to some other institution that selected by a faceless bureaucrat.
2
As far as I can tell this proposal would do nothing (but help?) those who get legacy admissions to places like Harvard, Yale, and others. This is the bigger problem of discrimination.
7
The biggest barrier to fairness is Legacy. Whether its wealth and income equality, networks, or access to education. I find it interesting that many folks defend Harvard's (and many other schools) current system of admission as "fair". The article says that Asians comprise 15k-20k of the 320k alumni. So they have only 4-5% of all legacy slots. Asians have suffered just as much historical discrimination and oppression by society as many other groups, which have limited their attendance at schools such as Harvard, and thus legacies. And yet, in the name of fairness, they suppress Asian enrollment in the name of fairness and diversity.
With 90% of the 37% percent legacy students are white, the quota of 12% African-American students, the 12% quota for Hispanic students, 3% for Native-Americans, about another 10% for athlete priority admits, this leave 30% available for those admitted purely based on academic ability regardless of privilege, race, special considerations.
Effectively, Asian are fighting for table scraps at Harvard and other elite schools that employ Legacy and race.
There is a word for such seemingly contradictory positions while clinging to seemingly noble goals. "HYPOCRITE".
With 90% of the 37% percent legacy students are white, the quota of 12% African-American students, the 12% quota for Hispanic students, 3% for Native-Americans, about another 10% for athlete priority admits, this leave 30% available for those admitted purely based on academic ability regardless of privilege, race, special considerations.
Effectively, Asian are fighting for table scraps at Harvard and other elite schools that employ Legacy and race.
There is a word for such seemingly contradictory positions while clinging to seemingly noble goals. "HYPOCRITE".
9
Why the ocd obsession with race? Racial differences in performance can be found all over the world. In Singapore the Chinese have a significantly higher income then the Malaysians , in Indonesia the same with the Chinese who are a small minority, despite aggressive affirmative action, in Canada east Asians have the highest income blacks have the lowest income, in Australia east Asians have the highest median income while the black indigenous have the lowest, in the carribian in majority black countries Hispanics have a higher average income then blacks, in England east Asians have the highest median income while black have the lowest, in Brazil the Japanese a minority have the highest average income while the blacks have the lowest. In all the above countries there are the same differences in levels of education and in crime rates. Racial disparities around the world are more often the norm then not. It is very hard to try to change a culture. In studies done where poor black mothers babies were adopted at birth to middle class white familes they white black test score gap closed to a small extent but not fully or very close to fully. A government cannot force a culture change on to people, only the people themself can do it. The disparities in crime rates with east asians committing very little crime and blacks commiting a disproportionate amount can also be found in the aboce countries too as well as large test score gaps.
6
Which Caribbean countries are those? In all your examples, you neglect to mention that often blacks live in the poorest neighborhoods and often do not have access to private schools or good public schools. I would challenge you to find that blacks from majority black countries and blacks who do have access to good schools often tend to perform better. Nigerians, Ghanaians and many West Indians are a few that come to mind. But most poor people (disproprtionately black) have access only to failing schools, have to work multiple jobs and so often can't supervise homework. Thus, their kids are doomed before they start, doomed to repeat the depressing lives of their parents. And often they will be criticised as not caring about their children's education/future. If you had to choose between working so as to feed/house your child and missing PTA meetings, which would you choose?
2
Although it is not politically correct to say so, genetics of matter and everyone is not created with equal intelligence. The average Asian-American has an IQ of 115, the average white-American an average of 100, the average Hispanic-American an average of 90 and the average African American an average IQ of 85. As much as liberal/progressives do not want these facts to be mentioned, they do exist.
6
Pat NYC
Haiti is 95 percent black and has been governed by blacks for 2 centuries.
Haiti is 95 percent black and has been governed by blacks for 2 centuries.
3
How about students be given an option - pay the current listed rate (~250k for undergrad degree) or pay x% of whatever you earn (including inheritances) for the first 30 years after graduation?
This nicely fits all objectives - those with parents of means would pay upfront, and those without the means would pay back based on the value of the education provided to them by Harvard!
This nicely fits all objectives - those with parents of means would pay upfront, and those without the means would pay back based on the value of the education provided to them by Harvard!
1
Taking percentage out of people's income is what student loan creditors get slammed in these webpages for. Harvard probably doesn't want to go there.
I cannot believe that the double digit gains on the billion dollar plus endowment are not taxed! Why not? I think using that money for something "good" or losing tax exemption a fine idea...
4
The only "fair" policy is one that admits applicants based on merit alone. Everything else is skewed and cheats qualified applicants.
12
In reply to AACNY,
I agree. The only "fair" policy is one based on merit alone. But the question is how you define merit? While a school may base it primarily on GPA and SAT scores, I would suggest suggest they consider the merit of other qualities. For example, participation in sports, winning dance competitions, making it through 12 years of school in a single parent family, singing regularly before an audience, and many, many more. There are many qualities that might predict choosing an individual who will contribute to society in creative and humanitarian ways. SAT scores are probably not one of those predictive qualities. I suggest that a certain level of GPA and SAT might be expected. But 4.0 vs 4.1, is that really meaningful? Both will handle the classwork. So, I would look for other measures of merit.
I agree. The only "fair" policy is one based on merit alone. But the question is how you define merit? While a school may base it primarily on GPA and SAT scores, I would suggest suggest they consider the merit of other qualities. For example, participation in sports, winning dance competitions, making it through 12 years of school in a single parent family, singing regularly before an audience, and many, many more. There are many qualities that might predict choosing an individual who will contribute to society in creative and humanitarian ways. SAT scores are probably not one of those predictive qualities. I suggest that a certain level of GPA and SAT might be expected. But 4.0 vs 4.1, is that really meaningful? Both will handle the classwork. So, I would look for other measures of merit.
2
Selective college admission officers are not just trying to fill classrooms, they are building a college community. Those few thousand students will publish a newspaper, populate an orchestra, chorus, and drama groups, and field teams in many men's and women's sports.
They won't succeed by taking the winners of a lottery composed of all the applicants with perfect SAT scores. They will have to be 'selective' to achieve their goals. And that French horn player is probably going to be white; maybe even a legacy.
They won't succeed by taking the winners of a lottery composed of all the applicants with perfect SAT scores. They will have to be 'selective' to achieve their goals. And that French horn player is probably going to be white; maybe even a legacy.
2
The goal of education is to make the world a better and more enlightened place. What does skin color have to do with contribution to humankind? When a cure for cancer is found, does it matter if the scientist is white or black or Asian? When a solution for global warming is discovered, does it matter if the scientist is white or black or Asian? Using race in college admission is fundamentally wrong. It is racist and unjust. By using race in college admission, we teach our children that the color of their skin makes an important difference in their future. Racial slurs do not hurt me in anyway. I know who I am. But if my opportunity in life is taken away because of the color of my skin and the law does nothing to protect me, something is seriously wrong. Using race in college admissions equals institutionalized racism.
79
Spoken like someone who just doesn't quite understand the extent to which opportunity in life is rooted in your social circumstance. Exactly what bootstrap is a child born into urban poverty without adequate parenting and education and access to healthy food and medical care supposed to use to pull him/herself up?
2
Redressing discrimination is not discrimination. Furthermore, there are benefits all the way around to diversity on college campuses. Students can contribute by providing their perspectives. If the student orchestra needs an oboe player, an applicant who plays the oboe gains an advantage. If a student represents an under-presented sector of demographic makeup, the student gains an advantage. Universities like Harvard turns away thousand of qualified prospects. The decision about who is admitted can not come down rank ordering the candidates used on a few objective criteria. Rather it rightfully can depend on what the student can contribute to the make up of the student body that the university desires.
1
It would still cost $75 to apply, though, right?
4
Why I (an alum) never give money to Harvard:
1) total potential tuition, at full rates, for 12,000 students at $45000 a year: $540 million
2) reasonable endowment draw down (4%, what they tell us we can take from retirement accounts forever): $1.5 billion
Harvard will say, to be fair, that they already cover 35% of operating expenses with endowment revenue, and another 45% with grants, current donations, and so forth. If endowment revenue covers the 20% that student revenue (after financial aid) now covers, they'll have 20% less total, since they're already disbursing $1.6 billion from the endowment (see annual report).
But compared to the many far-less endowed universities who do far more to elevate students who were not born on 3rd base, giving to Harvard to support students is simply not justifiable. Perhaps to specific research agendas one wishes to support, but not to students. Back in the day, I heard that there was a waiting-list to donate $40,000 rowing shells to dorm-based crew teams...and that, to me, seems simply obscene when so many colleges have dire need of funds to provide education.
1) total potential tuition, at full rates, for 12,000 students at $45000 a year: $540 million
2) reasonable endowment draw down (4%, what they tell us we can take from retirement accounts forever): $1.5 billion
Harvard will say, to be fair, that they already cover 35% of operating expenses with endowment revenue, and another 45% with grants, current donations, and so forth. If endowment revenue covers the 20% that student revenue (after financial aid) now covers, they'll have 20% less total, since they're already disbursing $1.6 billion from the endowment (see annual report).
But compared to the many far-less endowed universities who do far more to elevate students who were not born on 3rd base, giving to Harvard to support students is simply not justifiable. Perhaps to specific research agendas one wishes to support, but not to students. Back in the day, I heard that there was a waiting-list to donate $40,000 rowing shells to dorm-based crew teams...and that, to me, seems simply obscene when so many colleges have dire need of funds to provide education.
36
As an alumnus of Harvard, I give them money yearly and have been doing so for years. I am a fortunate man, from a very modest financial background, who benefited from Harvard's policy of paying for those who cannot afford it to study there. I am eternally grateful to Harvard's endowment and to the many alumni who so generously donate to the university. I could not have possibly even considered attending without the financial aid.
Michelle Obama once said, and I paraphrase, that when the door of opportunity opens for you, you don't shut it behind you. You reach back and pull through as many people as you can. I very much hope that my contributions can help another underprivileged student attend and graduate from Harvard.
Michelle Obama once said, and I paraphrase, that when the door of opportunity opens for you, you don't shut it behind you. You reach back and pull through as many people as you can. I very much hope that my contributions can help another underprivileged student attend and graduate from Harvard.
101
I was similarly fortunate 40+ years ago: Full tuition scholarship, a dorm crew (janitorial) job and a loan. Neither of my parents went to college. My dad was an Air Force sergeant and my mom had been a nurse. When I look at the financial aid form they meticulously completed, I marvel at how they stretched the few dollars they had.
However, instead of contributing to Harvard and its massive endowment, we give to a highly diverse, academically strong, values-rich urban school in St. Louis. Neither affirmative action nor free tuition can matter much unless students from challenging backgrounds are well enough prepared to be considered at all by an elite university, Harvard included.
However, instead of contributing to Harvard and its massive endowment, we give to a highly diverse, academically strong, values-rich urban school in St. Louis. Neither affirmative action nor free tuition can matter much unless students from challenging backgrounds are well enough prepared to be considered at all by an elite university, Harvard included.
4
Regarding tuition, the solution is simple. Charge each admitted student a specified fraction (e.g., 5%) of the total annual income of their parents and subsidize the rest. I'm not a big believer in free stuff even if Harvard has a huge fortune in endowment.
Regarding affirmative action, Harvard is a private university and it's their choice who the want to discriminate for or against. Data appear to point to discrimination against Asians. It would be nice if the admission process was more transparent and we can be amused by contortions in their reasoning in trying to justify the basis of their discrimination.
Regarding affirmative action, Harvard is a private university and it's their choice who the want to discriminate for or against. Data appear to point to discrimination against Asians. It would be nice if the admission process was more transparent and we can be amused by contortions in their reasoning in trying to justify the basis of their discrimination.
29
Harvard is a private institution not unlike La Cosa Nostra. It received 600 million in federal subsidies last year and pays no taxes.
2
"Harvard is a private university and it's their choice who the want to discriminate for or against."
I don't know that it's quite that simple. Not as an argument for or against affirmative action, but Harvard gets quite the pile of federal federal funding. I'm no lawyer, but i can see how that might be able to influence admissions requirements. Should the government decide it wants to play hardball.
(I reckon pigs might fly first.)
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/03/17/harvard-mit-and-other...
I don't know that it's quite that simple. Not as an argument for or against affirmative action, but Harvard gets quite the pile of federal federal funding. I'm no lawyer, but i can see how that might be able to influence admissions requirements. Should the government decide it wants to play hardball.
(I reckon pigs might fly first.)
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/03/17/harvard-mit-and-other...
1
This is kind of what harvard does now. It is super generous, and gives much more than Pell grants.
Mr. Unz has also written extensively about the 'over-representation' of Jews at Harvard, and his belief that they are given unfair preferences because of their Jewish background. Some of his critics have argued that he is, in fact, making an anti-Semitic argument.
I think this background information is important in evaluating his current proposal.
I think this background information is important in evaluating his current proposal.
149
I have never read anything about Mr Unz so I can't comment on him in particular. I have heard anti-Affirmative Action activists point out that AA hurts Asians because there seems to be a cap on Asian enrollment due to them being very overrepresented. Some anti-AA advocates point out that Jews are also very overrepresented so why isn't there a cap on their enrollment? I'm a Jew and feel it is a fair question. A lot of white AA supporters seem to be Jewish and it seems unseemly for them to be willing to take away from Asians and give to blacks and Hispanics when they aren't willing to do the same when their group is massively overrepresented and other groups (including whites) are underrepresented. I make the same criticism of black AA supporters who get outraged when people point out the areas where they are massively overrepresented in either numbers (sports, music) or advocacy (academia, leftist politics, media) while other minorities are shortchanged to these advocates indifference.
6
Thank you on this point.
1
Sorry Unz is Jewish himself.
3
Something needs to be done about the underlying costs of tuition/college education, not some complicated new way to finance or subsidize the same excessive cost.
The issue is the same in healthcare--true healthcare reform isn't really a question about expanding insurance coverage paid for by new taxes, but reducing the costs of healthcare (so society can actually afford to pay for universal coverage--or else the healthcare monster starts to consume the entire economy).
And true higher education reform should recognize that higher educations is largely (not exclusively) a signaling and sorting mechanism--10, 20 years out of school, the substance of what your learned in World Literature or the History of the French Revolution doesn't matter--the degree only serves as a proxy for a person's work ethic, brains and ability to pursue and accomplish a task. Like you often hear, the hardest part about Harvard is getting in--and that is actually true. So we as a society shouldn't need to expend $60k a year per student in that sorting and signaling effort.
We need to trim the fat from colleges and run them in a way that makes economic sense.
The issue is the same in healthcare--true healthcare reform isn't really a question about expanding insurance coverage paid for by new taxes, but reducing the costs of healthcare (so society can actually afford to pay for universal coverage--or else the healthcare monster starts to consume the entire economy).
And true higher education reform should recognize that higher educations is largely (not exclusively) a signaling and sorting mechanism--10, 20 years out of school, the substance of what your learned in World Literature or the History of the French Revolution doesn't matter--the degree only serves as a proxy for a person's work ethic, brains and ability to pursue and accomplish a task. Like you often hear, the hardest part about Harvard is getting in--and that is actually true. So we as a society shouldn't need to expend $60k a year per student in that sorting and signaling effort.
We need to trim the fat from colleges and run them in a way that makes economic sense.
9
"We need to trim the fat from colleges and run them in a way that makes economic sense."
What does that have to do with Harvard's admissions policies?
What does that have to do with Harvard's admissions policies?
"...In court documents filed in the Fisher case, Harvard says a victory for the plaintiffs in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit would overturn its efforts to build a racially diverse class." Oh, so you mean "Unconstitutional"?
Admit students on their merits regardless of the color of their skin. If that means a 100% Asian (or white or black or hispanic) so be it. Things will sort themselves out. Diversity is not, nor will it ever be, a reason to deny anyone their constitutional rights.
Admit students on their merits regardless of the color of their skin. If that means a 100% Asian (or white or black or hispanic) so be it. Things will sort themselves out. Diversity is not, nor will it ever be, a reason to deny anyone their constitutional rights.
21
You do not have a constitutional right to go to Harvard.
2
There is nothing in the Constitution about a guaranteed right to go to Harvard.
2
Funny how you look at it from the point of view of denying someone their rights. Helping African-Americans, for example, who still live with the legacy of having been denied their Constitutional rights for centuries, is a legitimate way to right an historical wrong. Things never just "sort themselves out" which is just another way of saying "I ain't helping anybody."
3
Free tuition would shrink Harvard's admissions rate to the size of a Higgs Boson.
33
An extremely apt comparison.
1
The notion that intelligent people could advocate for "free" tuition only demonstrates the lack real world understanding that exits at even the most prestigious universities.
No such thing as free tuition could exist. Someone will pay, if for the only reason that professors expect to be paid. Students may not be charged but someone will pay the cost of lights and heating, new equipment, building amortization, administrative expenses, etc.
To believe that tuition could ever be free is foolish in the extreme.
No such thing as free tuition could exist. Someone will pay, if for the only reason that professors expect to be paid. Students may not be charged but someone will pay the cost of lights and heating, new equipment, building amortization, administrative expenses, etc.
To believe that tuition could ever be free is foolish in the extreme.
7
octavian, you are, of course, exactly right. Most people are unaware of this, but the constitution of the state of California mandates that the tuition at the University of California shall be without cost to legal residents of the state of California.
And so it is. However, a student at the University of California, resident or not, is required to help defray a percentage of the cost of his "tuition-free" education by rendering to the Regents of the University of California a certain amount of money in the form of an "educational fee." During my own tenure as a student in the University of California System, our sainted governor, Ronald W. Reagan, Chairman of the Board of Regents ex officio, *tripled* this fee over the course of a single school-year of three quarters, reducing state support and entire departments, at the same time.,thereby decimating the minorities in the student body. Even such trivial amenities as a yearbook were eliminated.
For this reason alone, I despise Ronnie and all of his legacy. By comparison, Richard M. Nixon was by far the greatest Republican President since Ike.
And so it is. However, a student at the University of California, resident or not, is required to help defray a percentage of the cost of his "tuition-free" education by rendering to the Regents of the University of California a certain amount of money in the form of an "educational fee." During my own tenure as a student in the University of California System, our sainted governor, Ronald W. Reagan, Chairman of the Board of Regents ex officio, *tripled* this fee over the course of a single school-year of three quarters, reducing state support and entire departments, at the same time.,thereby decimating the minorities in the student body. Even such trivial amenities as a yearbook were eliminated.
For this reason alone, I despise Ronnie and all of his legacy. By comparison, Richard M. Nixon was by far the greatest Republican President since Ike.
Of course someone will pay. The point is that the tuition is free to the students, not that expenses aren't incurred. See: Germany, France, Brazil, Sri Lanka, etc. as examples.
But, of course, the word "free" has a use in English ... and it generally isn't used to mean "nobody pays". When I say that I got the second one free at a grocery store, I'm hardly implying that the cost-of-goods-sold is zero. When a company advertises a free gist to the first twenty customers, the company is not fooling itself into believing that it paid nothing for those gifts.
Your entire post is simply based on a misunderstanding of the use of the word "free".
Your entire post is simply based on a misunderstanding of the use of the word "free".
What would the class look like if admissions were sex-blind? This is something that no one seems willing to discuss. It is 2016 and we still seem to think of civil rights in exclusively racial terms. Civil rights mean human rights. That includes women.
43
Harvard's student body is approximately 50/50....which means that proportionately, your probability of admission is higher if you are a female because fewer females apply. Everyone is willing to discuss this....there is nothing to discuss though.
If you are talking about Civil Rights for women under US Law.....they have exactly the same civil rights as men.
If you are talking about Civil Rights for women under US Law.....they have exactly the same civil rights as men.
4
You would be surprised at the number of schools with 50+% women --- it's actually a growing problem.
5
I have been scanning admissions at a lot of top colleges for my daughter and I can tell you that UG admissions are close to 50/50 at most schools, and if not, the proportion is higher for females.
2
It is refreshing to see that there is an active movement against affirmative action and racial preferences at private universities that receive federal funding.
The Fisher case, recently heard by SCOTUS but not yet decided, directly addresses only affirmative action in admissions at public universities. But Federal civil rights law also applies to private schools that receive federal funding, which Harvard does, and in very large amounts. And race or gender based affirmative action are just as wrong in financial aid as it is in admissions. So the activity described here is a good thing.
Preferences in financial aid on the basis of economic need, and preferences in admission on the basis of economic or true social hardship are appropriate. Preferences on the basis of politically correct ethic and gender quotas are not. At private as well as public institutions.
The Fisher case, recently heard by SCOTUS but not yet decided, directly addresses only affirmative action in admissions at public universities. But Federal civil rights law also applies to private schools that receive federal funding, which Harvard does, and in very large amounts. And race or gender based affirmative action are just as wrong in financial aid as it is in admissions. So the activity described here is a good thing.
Preferences in financial aid on the basis of economic need, and preferences in admission on the basis of economic or true social hardship are appropriate. Preferences on the basis of politically correct ethic and gender quotas are not. At private as well as public institutions.
72
I've always been so confused by this argument. Somehow, you believe it is hard to be poor but not hard to be black or brown or a woman. Yet, there is evidence that all of these qualities result in social hardship. This very paper carries articles with that evidence daily (the latest was how women face sexual harassment in tech, but also their substantial coverage on the disparities in education and income based on race) right next to coverage of how income disparities result in outcomes preferential to the rich.
Do you just not believe this evidence? Why choose one social hardship as eligible for preferential treatment and not the other?
Do you just not believe this evidence? Why choose one social hardship as eligible for preferential treatment and not the other?
3
quotas are not the issue here, luckily.
The Fisher case is about a student who was not able to get in to UT based on her own merit. All she had to do was graduate in the top 10% of her high school class. She wanted to go to UT because most of her family had gone there, and she was upset that she didn't get to.
A little extra studying would have been a lot less work than a lawsuit.
A little extra studying would have been a lot less work than a lawsuit.
4
What is the value in an item that is not paid for? Harvard is a center of excellence and for it to remain so all forms of accoutrements that adds value to it must be kept in place and value must be placed on them as the administration deems it fit. If there is evidence that Asian students have not received fair admission treatment from Harvard, then amends should be made to remedy the situation.
8
"If there is evidence that Asian students have not received fair admission treatment from Harvard, then amends should be made to remedy the situation."
For example, by reducing the overwhelming number of white students, just as we've reduced taxes on the non-wealthy by enhancing the taxation of the rich.
For example, by reducing the overwhelming number of white students, just as we've reduced taxes on the non-wealthy by enhancing the taxation of the rich.
For some additional information, between June 30, 2010 and June 30, 2014, Harvard's endowment increased from $27.6 billion to $36.4 billion, a 31.8% increase.
Harvard itself publishes annual reports on its endowment. Here is the 2015 report: http://www.hmc.harvard.edu/docs/Final_Annual_Report_2015.pdf
Harvard itself publishes annual reports on its endowment. Here is the 2015 report: http://www.hmc.harvard.edu/docs/Final_Annual_Report_2015.pdf
3
Well ... but what happened to it in 2008 and 2009. during the stock market crash?
it increased a lot then because it got hammered by the recession! I'm at Harvard and we are still feeling the fall out from 2008. I know it's hard to believe, with such a big endowment, but it gets tricky. If an alum wants to give millions to pay for research on West Virginia mines, for example, or Ukrainian studies, then the money cannot be used to support undergraduates. I'm not making these examples up!
The most powerful move Harvard could make would be to get rid of legacy admission. Legacies create and perpetuate the good old boys club and deny deserving students admission over less able students based on where mommy and daddy went to school. But, lower quality students of Hispanic and black heritage must still be allowed to attend via quotas because that is the politically popular admissions procedure and race wins over ability any time. See Blows column for an explanation of why.
11
Could you please verify what you mean by "lower quality students of Hispanic and black heritage"
Thanks
Thanks
3
So....you are thinking that it would be smart for Harvard's trustees, to enact a policy which will 1) disable their children and grandchildren from attending Harvard, and 2) immediately terminate tens of millions of dollars in annual contributions by alumni who are attempting to influence the future admissions decisions about their children? My guess would be that the alumni of Harvard would immediately dismiss the board of trustees and re-elect a more intelligent group.
2
I'm just sayin, No, legacy students would not be disabled. They merely would give up their unfair advantage which actually disables the rest of the population.
Should Harvard be free? Absolutely not. I am an ivy league graduate who has spent a lot of my free time (14 years worth) tutoring inner-city youth. For years I did it for free, but I no longer charge nothing. I charge a ridiculously small amount (at least when that amount is compared to the market rate for like services) because I learned very early on that, whatever is given for free has no value to the recipient and an education that has value is one that has been worked for.
Should 4 years of tuition, room and board costs be north of a quarter-of-a-million dollars? Of course not. Leaving undergraduate school with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt forces a graduate to focus only on those few careers that can service that debt.
Education exists to free an individual and allow him or her follow his or her desires and talents which, it is hoped, lead us into the unknown. Education must not merely be an admission ticket into a field that is attractive only because it pays well nor must it be available to the lucky few who can afford its advantages.
Should 4 years of tuition, room and board costs be north of a quarter-of-a-million dollars? Of course not. Leaving undergraduate school with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt forces a graduate to focus only on those few careers that can service that debt.
Education exists to free an individual and allow him or her follow his or her desires and talents which, it is hoped, lead us into the unknown. Education must not merely be an admission ticket into a field that is attractive only because it pays well nor must it be available to the lucky few who can afford its advantages.
100
In much of Europe, college education is free, but is limited to those who are of high intelligence and abilities. The rest of the population is given free education in trade schools and the like, as it is pointless to waste money on any student who is simply not that smart, as it is a zero sum game.
If our public universities did the same, there would be a lot less student debt and a lot more middle class tradespeople, as we all know that our plumber makes a lot more money than the kid with a Master's degree in French Poetry working as a barista.
If our public universities did the same, there would be a lot less student debt and a lot more middle class tradespeople, as we all know that our plumber makes a lot more money than the kid with a Master's degree in French Poetry working as a barista.
4
Forget Harvard; if you gain entry to Harvard and don't have the means to pay tuition,Harvard will pick up the tab. And please, lets stop with "disadvantaged Asian populations". Or "disadvantaged ANY populations". Why? Because ANY test for special treatment in admissions should be based on *only* two things:
1) Is the student capable of doing the work?
2) Does the student come from a financially and socially challenged background - race should not enter into it.
Example: why should any minority student whose wealthy minority parents have afforded that student an excellent private school education, etc. etc. have an admissions advantage over any other student?
Thus, if a white, black, Asian, Latino, etc. etc. student has come along from a challenging environment AND can do the work necessary to thrive at a school, then one might consider giving a preference. Too many very well off, privileged, able-to-afford-the-best-schools students get into college with a preference based on race - acing out other talented students for a spot. How is that fair?
1) Is the student capable of doing the work?
2) Does the student come from a financially and socially challenged background - race should not enter into it.
Example: why should any minority student whose wealthy minority parents have afforded that student an excellent private school education, etc. etc. have an admissions advantage over any other student?
Thus, if a white, black, Asian, Latino, etc. etc. student has come along from a challenging environment AND can do the work necessary to thrive at a school, then one might consider giving a preference. Too many very well off, privileged, able-to-afford-the-best-schools students get into college with a preference based on race - acing out other talented students for a spot. How is that fair?
134
What happens when you have too many students that pass your two question test? Harvard can only take so many undergraduates. What should admissions committee do then?
Admissions is difficult. You cannot have a simple two question test, you will end up with two many students and not enough seats and then you have to be even more selective. We need to move away from people demanding admission to college because they think they deserve it or are more capable than others. That idea, even when using objective metrics like SATs and GPAs, is entirely subjective.
Admissions is difficult. You cannot have a simple two question test, you will end up with two many students and not enough seats and then you have to be even more selective. We need to move away from people demanding admission to college because they think they deserve it or are more capable than others. That idea, even when using objective metrics like SATs and GPAs, is entirely subjective.
4
Your point is right on...but I think most colleges complain that they do not have systems in place to identity great kids from tough backgrounds and instead are forced to take middle and upper class minorities....who apparently then run around Yale and Dartmouth bullying non-minority kids from less affluent backgrounds. Too many kids with challenged backgrounds succumb to those challenges (gangs, crime, jail, drugs) and no one stands up for them....except in an occasional feel-good movie.
1
This is exactly the admission policy of UC Berkeley. No legacy, no race. Only family income and parent's education. Result: nearly 40% Asians. Ditto for Caltech. Compare that to Harvard's 19% and other Ivy's.
3
A degree from Harvard (or any other institution of higher learning) has real value and making it "free" would send an incorrect message. I think a better approach would be to modify financial aid rules so that students from families with truly limited resources could have tuition and all expenses covered, while students from families that could cover all expenses without any financial stress at all would have to pay all costs involved. Of course the devil is in the details for most students whose family finances fall somewhere between these extremes but this could be worked out with generosity for those who need it being the fundamental principle. Requiring students to borrow money could reasonably be eliminated.
49
This is an interesting point, but I think just being able to get in is reward and value enough. Right now, Harvard does cover all expenses for those that need it, but the better question is, should Harvard continue to amass wealth indefinitely through all available channels? You can't stop alumni from giving but you can certainly stop taking money from your students.
28
This is pretty much what already happens.
7
What incorrect message would it send?
2
Just two thoughts to share:
1. As I recall, at one point Harvard did announce that they would charge no tuition to students from families with income below a certain level (around $100K I think). And yes, wealthy, top-tier schools are very generous with aid to students from less advantaged backgrounds. Are many dissuaded by the "sticker price?" Probably. The problem here has more to do with guidance counselors who either don't know the ropes or have far too many students on their caseloads to provide effective help.
2. The reference to "universities like Harvard with large endowments" is a bit absurd. There are no other universities "like Harvard" in this respect. As the accompanying table shows, the next four universities in terms of endowment average not quite 2/3 of Harvard's endowment, and one of those is a much larger institution in terms of enrollments. After that, the next cluster commands less than 1/3 of Harvard's financial muscle. So this would lead to an increase in stratification of higher education - as well as reduced revenue from parents well able to foot the bill.
I write as one who is footing a rather large bill despite a five-figure income. More aid would be welcome! But let's try to spread it a little more evenly...
1. As I recall, at one point Harvard did announce that they would charge no tuition to students from families with income below a certain level (around $100K I think). And yes, wealthy, top-tier schools are very generous with aid to students from less advantaged backgrounds. Are many dissuaded by the "sticker price?" Probably. The problem here has more to do with guidance counselors who either don't know the ropes or have far too many students on their caseloads to provide effective help.
2. The reference to "universities like Harvard with large endowments" is a bit absurd. There are no other universities "like Harvard" in this respect. As the accompanying table shows, the next four universities in terms of endowment average not quite 2/3 of Harvard's endowment, and one of those is a much larger institution in terms of enrollments. After that, the next cluster commands less than 1/3 of Harvard's financial muscle. So this would lead to an increase in stratification of higher education - as well as reduced revenue from parents well able to foot the bill.
I write as one who is footing a rather large bill despite a five-figure income. More aid would be welcome! But let's try to spread it a little more evenly...
12
"Free" tuition is essentially a stalking horse for another "conservative" agenda item--attacking affirmative action. This is standard operating procedure for "conservative advocates" who propose initiatives and/or board candidates for universities.
Whether or not places with huge endowments should lower/eliminate tuition is a valid question, but it should be de-coupled from the other "riders" attached to the bill.
Whether or not places with huge endowments should lower/eliminate tuition is a valid question, but it should be de-coupled from the other "riders" attached to the bill.
38
Affirmative action is not like voting rights. Taking a job or a college seat away from a non-minority person....who is in many or most instances, is much more qualified....and given to a middle class minority kid is not the same as hindering someone from voting. Its a real problem and when you or your children are on the losing side of affirmative action.....you will know why so many people hate it and why its perceived to be ineffective.
3
Looks like you missed the part about non-wealthy Asians being turned aside because of an exclusive quota.
1
Harvard, and a lot of other colleges, have no dearth of worthy candidates. Free tuition wouldn't provide any more capable students that Harvard thinks it isn't accessing. Let's not forget a very salient byproduct of such a measure: extremely rich people sending the 5th and 6th generation of their legacies to Harvard would not have to touch their bank accounts. Don't be blinded by a claim to be in favor of equality.
71
I'm not sure about free tuition but the steady size of Harvard's endowment astounds me. Isn't having rich people write checks to Harvard just moving wealth from one place to another? Why should we condemn individual people for amassing wealth and not Harvard?
4
Harvard does a lot of great things with its money and spends a lot. for example, it spends huge sums paying for people who couldn't afford to attend otherwise. it helps pay for research of all sorts. if there was one thing it could do to improve, imo, it would be to cut administration in half.
1
Why should we condemn individuals or institutions for amassing wealth? Ressentiment much?
1
If they do away will all admission preferences - including legacy - and they remove all information on gender, race, location, income, etc from all applications, then I would be fine with experimenting with removing affirmative action.
83
I don't think identity-fixated Americans could handle a move like this. They seem incapable of seeing people without affixing an identity of some kind. They wouldn't even know how to judge someone.
Imagine all that "diversity" spending that could be redirected toward education.
Imagine all that "diversity" spending that could be redirected toward education.
5
exactly what needs to be done
1
Let me ask you this: would you be OK for the kid that got Kaplan SAT prep getting in versus the kid who couldn't afford it?
2
About 14 percent of the incoming freshman to Harvard said their families earn above $500,000 per year, putting their families among the top 1 percent of earners in the United States. To give these students free tuition instead of more needy students attending other institutions would be a poor use of a tax free endowment. If this happens, I would suggest that we push to tax these grants as income based at the recipients family's tax rate.
181
where are your numbers from? I have never heard that. harvard gives out aid to those who need it. about 70% get some sort of aid and about 60% get need based scholarships so that they pay very little.
Ben, you assume too much. It's not about the parents, it's about the students. I paid 100% of my tuition as an undergraduate and in grad school. Not all parents are willing to pay for college; that may come as a surprise to you.
4
If I am not mistaken, Harvard already offer significant financial discounts by family income, so that families making 150K or less actually spend a low portion of their income on tuition and the brackets rise from there. I don't know if the education of wealthy and/or legacy students who could easily shoulder their tuition requires being covered, but I guess in the end its Harvard's endowment and they may do as they please with it. It just seems to me that a greater divide on income inequality will be drawn if this doesn't trickle down tto universities and colleges outside of the ivy leagues.
21
I suspect (let's call it a guess) that with free tuition, Harvard can raise its standards even higher since the demand for seats will be equally high.
I wonder how free tuition would affect teacher and assistant salaries?
I wonder how free tuition would affect teacher and assistant salaries?
5
Harvard and other colleges in America do not have "standards". Kids apply and statistics are calculated on the ones admitted. That is just a numerical result....not a standard. The majority of kids applying to any college, have the proper prerequisites to undertake study and graduate at any college...including Harvard. Lots of books on the subject if you are interested.
In regards to salaries....that IS the cost of tuition. Students are charged an amount to meet the costs of the population of employees of Harvard....free tuition would mean that students no longer contribute to the salaries of employees....the board of trustees alone does that. My guess is that it would limit future raises and hirings.
In regards to salaries....that IS the cost of tuition. Students are charged an amount to meet the costs of the population of employees of Harvard....free tuition would mean that students no longer contribute to the salaries of employees....the board of trustees alone does that. My guess is that it would limit future raises and hirings.
This plan is basically welfare for rich people.
118
how so? plenty of working class and middle class kids attend Harvard with gift aid, if I am not mistaken. Growing up, I knew about eight public school kids who went to Harvard. Smart, not-rich Jewish kids.
9
Because many of those kids scholarships were funded by the people who could afford it paying full tuition. Harvard is already free for, I think, those coming for families making under $100,000 a year. This would make it free for the kids of Hedge Fund billionaires.
5
Wrong. It's the opposite of welfare for people who aren't qualified to attend.
Sometimes people who aren't rich are qualified to attend.
Sometimes people who aren't rich are qualified to attend.
1
Putting aside the many other issues, a real question is what should an endowment be for and how should it be managed. Currently, endowments are managed to be maintained "in perpetuity" and in fact to continue to grow in perpetuity. This is unreasonable. Has there ever been a civilization that lasted "in perpetuity"? Endowments should be managed to provide the maximum funding for tuition, research and other costs at present, using at least all current income and a modest part of the principal, perhaps aiming for a 50 year span if there were no further fundraising. Continued fundraising will almost certainly continue to make the endowment grow, although more slowly. Managing for an infinite future is not only unrealistic but also shortchanges the present. Investing in the present could serve as seed money to allow more to be accomplished now, and successes will lead to continued.
12
Logos, an endowment is usually private money and the donors may put stipulations on how the money is to be spent, often so that these funds are not squandered. Telling donors exactly how to manage their gift would probably decrease donations and a retroactive denial of the donors wishes would probably be some sort of contract violation.
13
Spending all investment income plus part of the principal of an endowment every year would end up reducing the size of the endowment over time -- which would also reduce subsequent year's investment returns. In fairly short order, more fundraising would be required and pressure would be put on both tuition and financial aid. Eventually, the endowment would disappear, or would have to be re-built from scratch. The point of an endowment is that is grows over time, so that the prudent portion of it which can be spend each year also grows. A strong endowment with a limited spend rate also protects against market downturns and requires more spending prudence during such times. Unfortunately, politicians, like Reed who want to score quick political points with a fearful electorate, want to see endowments spend the same way that governments spend, that is to ultimately spend more than they take in. But donations are not taxes, and private institutions have a right to manage their money, and futures, more wisely.
8
Harvard has been around for over 350 years, and there are a number of universities in the world that make that look like a short life. The notion that an entity should only plan for a fifty year window is absurd...fifty years just isn't that long. Any institution (or business) has to engage in real long-term planning, and in perpetuity is the logical way to do that. I could go and and spend every bit of my money today, assuming that I can always earn more tomorrow, or I can spend some of my money, and save some because I can't predict tomorrow. Planning for the future is the sensible thing to do, for me, and for large institutions.
11
"I think a better approach would be to modify financial aid rules so that students from families with truly limited resources could have tuition and all expenses covered, while students from families that could cover all expenses without any financial stress at all would have to pay all costs involved."
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.