HarVandy, Inc.

kentuckymom · April 7, 2009, 7:46pm

The story of HarVandy, Inc.:

The name of the company is HarVandy, Inc. It was created as a stepping stone of sorts, an elite non-profit corporation where for four years its employees, fresh out of high school, hone their skills and experience in preparation for, and anticipation of, very lucrative future careers. While the company’s required room and board and other living expenses are very high at approximately $55,000 per year, salaries are structured and intended to cover these costs. 

High school seniors apply for employment, after filling their high school years with the hardest courses, achieving the highest grades, and creating resumes of exceptional activities and honors. The best of the best are chosen by HarVandy, as advertised, through a very “holistic” process. 

For over half of the recruits (“Group A”), salary offers range up to $55,000, and, as an added benefit, the earnings are tax-free. For the others (“Group B”), no salary whatsoever is offered. Most A’s and B’s have very similar credentials. So, then, what is the reason for the disparity in salaries? It is, in fact, something the recruits have no control over–their parent’s financial situation–their earnings history and amount of savings and assets. Of course, we are talking about 18-22 year olds, adults, really–so what should their parents have to do with this salary structure? HarVandy officials insist that since the Group B parents have greater financial resources than Group A, their children should be paid conversely, if at all. So the B’s, if they desire to work for this elite institution, must ask their parents to pay the full price (with their after-tax earnings) to support them for four more years, at $55,000 per year, before they can claim career independence. These employees, although legally adults, are forced to remain attached to their parent’s purse strings. Loans for this amount are not feasible. And these B’s and their parents are told that they are doing the right and fair thing, in reparation for the disparity among their financial status. They must count themselves lucky for the opportunity to participate in such a noble enterprise. And HarVandy has successfully enticed these parents to, in essence, pay the salaries of its own employees.

There are a very, very few of the Group B’s who are offered some meritorious salary–the brightest and best of the incoming group. However, they must maintain a high level of performance at the risk of their salary being taken away. Group A, however, receives their large salaries with no strings attached, either to their parents or the company. There is no evaluation criteria–their salaries are not intended to reward their own performance, rather to make up for the lack of their parent’s financial performance, regardless of the reason. 

The rest of Group B, receiving no salary at all, after trying diligently not to be jealous of those who do, begin to wonder if the company really values their contributions and presence. They feel that even after all of their hard work, they have somehow let their parents down, and are a burden to them. They worry if their chances at any future career could ever be worth this level of investment. And Money, as always, talks. The murmurings of unrest begin.

Adding to the unrest, an unpaid Caucasian member of Group B learns of HarVandy’s marketing campaign which places great emphasis on its “diversity”, which apparently means the large percentage of the other races it employs, as it details its achievement of increased percentages of 40 to 45% of other ethnic groups. “Oh,” B thinks, “If only I weren’t white, then, even though I am paid nothing for the opportunity of working here, I could at least be of some marketing value.” But behind these valiant thoughts, uncomfortably, they begin to wonder if HarVandy’s salary policies are in some way tied to these marketing campaigns. 

And one day, Group B decides they will no longer work for nothing. They don’t understand a system where rewards are not based on their own achievements, potential, or work performed. They admire their parents for working hard to achieve and for saving and investing their earnings wisely. They see no fairness in a policy which results in penalty of their parent’s achievements and a failure to reward their own. They wonder how the mindset of this majority of A employees, with no financial stake in this stage of their career, will be impacted in their future attitudes toward risk, reward, and entitlement. And they realize that race is not something to be exploited in any way, and that forced diversity does not result in color-blindness.

They leave. Leaving HarVandy, however, unable to function without all of the Group B’s, who carried a large share of the work and whose parents covered the expenses. The tremendous academic statistics of the company begin to fall without the contribution of the B’s. The glamour begins to fade. HarVandy is forced to scale back and to ask the Government for a bailout. It is, after all, too big to fail. And the government’s increasingly progressive tax structure ensures that the underlying philosophy of HarVandy’s policies can continue, even though it will probably be unable to maintain its once elite status. As Newsweek recently reported, “We are all Socialists now.” HarVandy was merely one of the first to capitalize upon it.

iconplaybass · April 7, 2009, 8:56pm

You are obviously a very bitter person. Maybe it would help if you talked to a friend.

kentuckymom · April 7, 2009, 9:00pm

And you must be a happy “A”. You shouldn’t be calling parents of "B"s “bitter”–you should be thanking them for their contribution to your education.

sueinphilly · April 7, 2009, 9:33pm

Life stopped being fair the moment you were conceived. Get over it.

kentuckymom · April 7, 2009, 9:39pm

I have. We’re just not going to support one of these schools by paying full tuition so they can spread our wealth around.

But wait–isn’t spreading the wealth all about “fairness”? Obviously, the definition of “fair” depends upon which side you’re on.

sk8rmom · April 7, 2009, 9:49pm

The problem with this argument is that A’s and B’s both are taxpayers and B’s tuition dollars are not even covering their own expenses, let alone A’s expenses. Federal aid is based on our society’s collective determination that equal access
to education and opportunity is critical to our continued prosperity as a nation. If that is a problem for you, there are better avenues available to make your voice heard. Institutional aid comes largely from endowments. These are funded by private donors, who may choose to spend their dollars in whatever way seems fit. College is generally very expensive for everyone but a small percentage of A’s and B’s.

kentuckymom · April 7, 2009, 10:06pm

The A’s and B’s are both adults of legal age. The financial standing of their parents should not be the University’s business. The government seems to have that undertaking well under control.

Imagine being an 18-year old, getting ready to, say, lease an apartment and the landlord asks to see your parent’s financial statements before he tells you the rental price. The more money your parents have, the higher the rent. In the same building, he leases the same apartments to others for free or reduced amounts. Is this “fair”? Why would it be fair for education, which you seem to be saying is a basic “right”, and not for housing?

kentuckymom · April 7, 2009, 10:29pm

If a school like Vanderbilt is “need blind”, meets 100% of need to all admitted students with no loans, has endowments that were invested in stocks that are now worth 60% of what they were last fall, has seen a decrease in new endowments, and has fewer full-pays matriculating, tuition will most definitely go up. The aid has to come from somewhere, and it is not all from endowments. The full-payers are taking up the slack.

sk8rmom · April 7, 2009, 10:37pm

I’m just not following this line of reasoning at all right now. If the apartment building is funded by public dollars, there probably IS an income scale! Ever hear of Section 8 or HUD? Have you ever filled out a rental application for a privately owned building? There are most definitely income and employment questions and if your income is not sufficient, you will need a co-applicant. Are you saying that housing is also not a basic human right and necessity? Personally, I don’t care to live in a nation where only the “haves” can be college educated or have a roof over their head! How poor we would all be…

iconplaybass · April 7, 2009, 10:39pm

You DO NOT have to pay the 52000 Vanderbilt price, at all, if you really don’t want to, since that seems to be what is bothering you.

You live in KY? UK tuition, room, and board is about 14000.

Not everyone can afford a Lexus. You may have to buy a Toyota or Hyundai.

sk8rmom · April 7, 2009, 10:43pm

“Despite the fact that college tuition rose much more rapidly than either consumer prices or family incomes during the 1980s and 1990s, few college students paid the full cost of higher education during this period. Those who attended public colleges and universities paid relatively low tuition, with state taxpayers funding much of the cost of running these institutions. Students enrolled in private colleges and universities generally paid significantly higher tuition, but that tuition was rarely high enough to cover costs, which have traditionally been subsidized by private donors.”

kentuckymom · April 7, 2009, 10:50pm

But under your scenario, iconplaybass, some kids (adults, really) are getting the Lexus for free, and the ones with the “rich” parents have to ask their parents to pay for it. And if the “rich kid” wants to be treated as an independent adult, they should choose the hyundai. Exactly my point.

The schools, with this kind of policy, will be building a student body of a few ultra-rich and the rest on financial aid. As a poster pointed out on another thread, the middle-to-upper-middle class is being squeezed out. I don’t think schools like this can last for long in this economy.

And sk8rmom, I’m not talking about Section 8 housing. I’m talking about Vanderbilt. I don’t think they are comparable.

iconplaybass · April 7, 2009, 10:58pm

Its all about Vanderbilt, isn’t it?

Why don’t you take this up directly with them? Give them a piece of your mind, if you will.

kentuckymom · April 7, 2009, 11:10pm

No, it’s not only Vanderbilt. They are just a good example of the problem.

Tell my D who has equal or better credentials than the many who are posting on these forums who are getting the Lexus for free that she has to pay full price for the same car. She’s extremely driven and self-motivated and wants to be independent. She is her own person, not just the D of a “rich” parent, and she is choosing to buy the Hyundai. And the Hyundai dealership is treating her like they are fortunate to have her. Perhaps the wisest investment in the long run.

midmo · April 7, 2009, 11:17pm

The big donors to schools like Vanderbilt, the target of your ire, are wealthy individuals, families and private corporations. Their donations are what finance need-based grants and scholarships. People like Martha Ingram and the Ingram family have decided the country is a better place if students who hail from lower income families have an opportunity to get a first-rate undergraduate education. They believe Vanderbilt is a better university when people from different places and different backgrounds go to school together.

What you seem to be suggesting is that Vanderbilt should charge every single student the same amount, and that amount should be low enough that every 18 yr. old adult can afford it. In the absence of very considerable additional donations from wealthy contributors, Vanderbilt would not be Vanderbilt in that scenario–it would be a community college.

It seems to me it is hard to get around the fact that voluntary contributions from alumni and other interested parties are crucial to the existence of private schools, and many of those contributors applaud the effort to end the all-white, all-wealthy image of yesteryear.

iconplaybass · April 7, 2009, 11:17pm

Your daughter is a wise person. Perhaps you would do well to learn from her.

midmo · April 7, 2009, 11:19pm

I have to say I like the HarVandy thing, though. It is rare indeed for Vanderbilt and Harvard to be mentioned in the same sentence on CC.

kentuckymom · April 7, 2009, 11:26pm

Funny you see it this way. She thinks she is learning from me, by working hard for her own achievements. Both of her parents worked their way through college and have been very successful in their careers, and saved and invested wisely. She wants a chance to do the same. Overpriced colleges, even with the glamour of their name, aren’t going to fit into her plan to be financially independent.

romanigypsyeyes · April 8, 2009, 12:02am

I am terribly sorry to have offended you as I am a group A person. You’re absolutely right, my parents are poor so I don’t have the right to a good education. Duh, how silly of me.

Get over it. Your lucky enough that your parents can afford your education, so you prbably live a comfortable life. Come to my world. I am 18 and have lived in more than 14 different places because of evictions and other issues. I would gladly have your problem.

romanigypsyeyes · April 8, 2009, 9:48am

Sorry, just realized you were a mom. In that case, you’re right. You should have to contribute nothing to your children’s education. It is entirely your choice whether or not you want to. If you have the resources then you should contribute, but you could make them do it on their own. But don’t punish us poor students because you CHOOSE not to contribute to your child’s educational cost, when OUR parents don’t have the choice to contribute. However, your son/daughter does not HAVE to go to that top notch private school. It is a LUXURY, not a right. He/she could just as easily go to a state school and graduate with little to no debt. Is it ideal? No. But, it is a decision he/she will have to make.

Besides, at 18, who supports us? Our parents. If I had to pay for school entirely on my own, I would never be able to go. But my parents can’t afford it either which is why the government helps me. Is it fair that someone like me, who has no resources to contribute to their education, should be punished to graduate with $200,000 in debt, whereas someone who is in a position to not recieve financial aid (meaning that they must have had the income or the resources to be in that position) should be able to borrow from their parents and only graduate with say, $50,000 in debt, because their parents could contribute money to help out.

But again, you’re absolutely right. Just because we have poor parents means that we should not have a right to a decent higher education. I totally forgot that we live in a society where only the nobles have a right to a higher education. Silly, I thought we lived in America.

EDIT:
And if I come off as sounding like attacking your view point, make no mistake, I am. If you are really going to cut off your 18 year old and provide them with no financial help simply because they are legally adults, then that is your problem. If you are getting no aid from a school that meets 100% of need, then you ma’am do not have a ton of need. Am I saying your son/daughter will graduate with no debt? Absolutely not. Am I saying you probably have the resources to at least cover some of the costs? Absolutely. But if you are selfishly going to cut off your child because they are an adult, then that is your problem. But do not blame us, the group Aers, because our parents don’t have the luxury to simply decide if they want to help us or not.

Also, yeah at 18 you are an adult. But you have had neither the time nor the resources to build up enough money to be financially indepedent. Therefore, it is completely fair to expect what parents can pay.

HarVandy, Inc.

CONNECT WITH US