<p>jym626 - care to explain where I was “wrong” again. Do the math.</p>
<p>Chipper, you are wrong in your statement about an inner circle and newcomers need not apply.</p>
<p>Sorry Art-- wasn’t meant in a derogatory fashion. Is there a PC correct term for someone that is new to a forum? I have always heard them referred to as “newbies” just as college “newbies” are freshmen. Just the term to use… Is there a better one? Never heard of anyone new to a forum called a “freshman”. Ideas??</p>
<p>I didn’t really object to the use of the term “newbie” - what I did object to is the “putdown” that a newcomer can’t “correct” one of the “inner sanctum”. </p>
<p>But, I think we can all agree that while the term “newbie” may have been made out of ignorance, the condescending tone and capitalized “PRICELESS” was done with intent. </p>
<p>Mean Girls Grown Up?</p>
<p>jym, yes. But what was strangest to me is the assumption that oldtimers would join youi in believing that because someone worked there (unless as head of endowment) they know what Harvard can or can not do. No slight to Marite whose posts I have not read.</p>
<p>The whole thing about how a newbie will learn, oh my, we sure are taking a messege board pretty seriously!</p>
<p>To be honest, this site would be much more interesting and educational with some new and different voices but I don’t think it will happen because of the above type welcome.</p>
<p>How about not referring to the seniority of the poster at all, which has nothing to with the content of his or her post.</p>
<p>Please review your prior post and tell me how this cannot be viewed as condescending, since I just don’t see it:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Chipper:</p>
<p>I invite you again to read the FAS Dean’s letter to the faculty. Then you can do the math. The FAS has a deficit. I think it’s in the order of $80 millions, and it is estimated to affect FAS for the next decade or so. This is due partly to the expansion of the faculty, partly to the construction of new buildings and partly, I assume to a levy for expansion into Allston. As well, 85% of the College endowment is committed, i.e, non-fungible, and thus not available for undergraduate scholarships.<br>
Now 2/3 of the students are on finaid. Although most are not getting full rides, they cannot be counted to gift anything to Harvard. The rest, the one-third who are paying full fare number about 2,000. In other words, every year, they pay Harvard about $90millions, more than the size of the current deficit. And the loss of $90 millions would be for every year. I have not factored in the tuition income from the students who are on partial finaid.
If you think that Harvard College (not Harvard University) can easily absorb the loss of $90 millions per year, I’m sure the FAS Dean would like to hear from you.</p>
<p>Art:</p>
<p>Some posters make a point to look up old posts. Old-timers like jym know that I have close connections to Harvard going back a long time.</p>
<p>I missed about 250 posts. The last 50 are garbage, but we can’t win them all. This one is garbage too except for the following part.</p>
<p>Kat, I read about three of your kids and the zero EFC.</p>
<p>My hat is off to you and those kids.</p>
<p>Well, thats it! I am not sending my kid to Harvard if they don’t know how to handle their money.</p>
<p>Nah, I can’t take the neighborhood out of the equation and why should I have to? Is this thread only a fight about the money everyone has or doesn’t have? </p>
<p>Neighborhood affects quality of faculty, curvo. That is a fact. There are lots of brilliant academics who don’t want to live in the provinces. Lots. Ask WUSTL. However, my snobbery isn’t based solely on rational thought. If I had a choice between H and Y and P–I’d go for H–because of the neighborhood–or Columbia or Barnard or NYU or Fordham or Marymount Manhattan. I don’t like New Haven. I hate the Yale campus. I might take Fort Worth over New Haven. Princeton is in suburban New Jersey for goodness sake. </p>
<p>I’m not sure if this point has been raised but I never even thought about applying for merit money. I’ve been asked if I wanted it at the secondary school level for S2–and we turned it down. Money should go to kids who need it–like the kittens. Private schools are great. I am a big fan. Lower income kids should get the chance to experience them.</p>
<p>*If possible, I’d like some bonus points for that sentiment. I’ll apply the bonus to those cyber panties that get into a bunch. ;)</p>
<p>Chipper - I never went to Harvard and I don’t work there and don’t claim to be a mathematicalm genius but do know how to do long division and your numbers look right to me. In fact Harvard has so much money coming in it cannot even find effective ways to spend it. The endowment is doubling every decade or so - growing way faster than inflation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My sentiments exactly.</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>Assuming your numbers are accurate - and I have no reason to question them, the 15% of the endowment that is not “committed” is still $4.5 Billion. An incredibly weak return on that sum would still be sufficient to subsidize the additional students’ (those not already receiving aid) tuition.</p>
<p>And, of course, the current recipients of aid cannot presently “gift” the school anything. My belief is that grateful students will more than repay Harvard its tuition subsidies in the future. </p>
<p>BTW, it was just an idea - a “what if the top schools…”</p>
<p>Kirmum-
Someone posted in a different thread how unpleasant (my word) the posts were getting this thread, and that it was starting to feel like one of those (brrr) political threads. As I am truly interested in the original topic, I came in to peek around. I was trying to find a good place to start, but as I went back I kept stumbling into things that were inaccurate. Thought I 'd perhaps lighten things up a bit by addressing some of the booboo’s (such as the Animal house reference)- perhaps change the subject a little ('mudge found it entertaining in katlia’s response), so did work for a brief moment, til people seemed to get all defensive and hostile again. And sorry if it sounded condescending-- its wasnt intended to be-- it was truly funny to me, knowing Marite’s background and insights. But I did a little further checking, and I don’t think marite’s affiliation with this fine institution was news to the newcomer. I think the tone of this thread had contributed to many posters having a hairpin trigger keyboard finger, and many are in the mood for a fight. That wasnt my intention-- I was trying to get a few folks to lighten up. Worked in some cases, failed in others. Oh well… can’t win 'em all. As for newcomers, I repeat that I welcome their input. There was another relative newcomer who came out swinging in several of his posts a few mos back. In that case I PM’d him to suggest how he might reframe some of his posts, and it has made a huge difference. But it was a different situation, not really applicable here. Here, I was observing some if the interchange, and will politely go back to my ringside seat.</p>
<p>cheers, Is this thread only a fight about the money everyone has or doesn’t have?
Not to me. Is it to you? </p>
<p>Money should go to kids who need it. </p>
<p>Edit: I agree. That’s where a lot of merit money goes, too. To middle class families who would otherwise have limited choices as they can’t afford what the college wants them to pay.</p>
<p>And who in your opinion gets to make that “need” decision for a family?</p>
<p>Back to BU /Northeastern Full ride. Assume your family is pinched for cash and would have to pay $25K to Bu a year. Hey, they are both in Boston.</p>
<p>I’ve tried hard to stay out of this thread because I too think most people are just justifying their family’s decision. Each family is different. Each child is different. </p>
<p>But the idea that you compare the quality of the student body based solely on SAT scores is, IMO, silly. And, I’m an advocate of standarized tests. If Harvard wanted to raise its median scores it could do so overnight. It does, after all, turn down about half of those with 1600s that apply. But, yes, Cur, more than 10% of the class most years has a 1600 SAT. Indeed, Harvard isn’t the only school where more than 10% of the class has 1600s. </p>
<p>SATs are useful. But, they take in large ranges. My kid went to a NYC public magnet and thought two kids were much smarter than anyone else in the class in very different ways. Neither got a 1600 (old SAT). (Several classmates did.) One is a math genius. I forget whether an 800 on the math SAT is the top 1 or 2%. In any event, the 800 scorers cover a WIDE range in math ability. This boy scored in the top 50 in the nation on the AIME (American Invitational Math Exam) in 9th grade.He’s just extraordinary in math. He’s also good verbally, but not as good. His SAT score was something like a 1540. </p>
<pre><code>But, in reality, the difference between his math aptitude/skills and that of some of his classmates who also got 800s on the math portion of the SAT was just MUCH, MUCH greater than the margin between his verbal skills and all but the most stellar of his classmates in terms of verbal skills. Not everyone with a 800 on the math SAT I belongs in the same math class.
The idea that you could compare how outstanding the math majors at two schools are by comparing the median math SAT I scores at those schools is just plain silly.
Realistically, there are only a few schools in the nation where a kid that good at math can go and be challenged. (Indeed, if you look at the top kids in math over the span of a lot of years, as far as I know, only one kid has accepted a merit scholarship. That was the girl from Park Tudor in Indianapolis who took merit money at Duke. ) I don’t care how much $ anybody threw at him, he wasn’t going to Centre College or Rhodes. They are perfectly fine schools, but they don’t have the critical mass of other young gifted mathematicians he wanted.
</code></pre>
<p>The other boy was more interested in humanities, but was good at everything. He is one of the most genuinely intellectual young people I’ve ever met. He was not the class val–and my kid said it was in part because some teachers didn’t like the way he would challenge them. He went to Harvard where challenging people was just fine. He was co-valedictorian of his Harvard class. He didn’t have a 1600 SAT either. </p>
<p>My point isn’t that the SAT is invalid. As I said, I’m a believer in it. But, not all smart kids are equal. Some kids are smarter than other kids. Some kids are extraordinarily gifted in fields not measured by SATs. I know one girl who went to HYPS who had a SAT in the 1300s. She was also a white kid with two parents who only spoke English who started taking Chinese in 9th grade and scored 800 on Chinese with listening. (Most of the kids who do are native Chinese speakers.) She was also fluent in two European languages and loved Latin, in which she excelled. Somehow I can understand the top school she attended overlooking the math SAT which was barely above 500. By the way, as a college freshman, she won the prize for best short story written by an undergraduate. The last person who had done that as a freshman is one of the greatest American writers of all time. </p>
<p>Lets say my kid excelled at basketball. He was good enough to play Division I.Do you think how good he is within that range might factor into his decision as to which school to attend? Isn’t there a pretty big range in the quality of basketball players who can play in Division I? If he’s a real <em>star</em> with a shot at the NBA, would it make sense to go to a Division I team that isn’t all that good? What if he was very good, good enough to be recruited, but was unlikely to get much playing time at all if he went to a top basketball school? Might it make sense for him to go to a school with a team that wasn’t quite as good, but where he would get some playing time? What if he was good, but it was unlikely that he’d ever make the NBA. Should he go to the college with the best basketball team and ignore all other factors?</p>
<p>I may not be articulating this clearly, but I think a similar process applies in academics. The crystal ball is always plenty cloudy. Barack Obama really was a B student at Punaho–generally regarded as one of the most academically outstanding schools in Hawaii–and graduated magna from Harvard Law. That’s a real turnaround. I know a man who flunked out of college and was Columbia Law Review. It happens. Michael Jordan didn’t make his junior varsity basketball team either. </p>
<p>Still, how much sense it makes to take the free ride at a school a tier or two below depends in part on the best analysis that you can make as to where your kid stands in the overall pool or maybe just the pool for his particular interest. It also depends on how your kid feels about being a <em>star</em> or just average and what kind of friends they like to make. </p>
<p>I am grateful for the opportunities that my kid’s elite university offered. Was every kid a genius? No. But it was okay to talk about ideas. One of the best experiences was when the seniors all gave presentations about the senior projects to their classmates. This wasn’t a class. It was just “for fun.” But my kid heard presentations about all sorts of things and while it wasn’t mandatory, over 90% of the class participated. And the kids all did truly exciting kids outside of class too. The kid who didn’t participate in at least one EC was very rare.</p>
<pre><code>So, it is a personal choice. And it’s one that’s different for each kid. If your D wants to participate in gymnastics at a Division I school, well, then her criteria for choosing a college are going to be very different than those of kids who aren’t gymnasts.
</code></pre>
<p>But, yes, in terms of academics, I believe there is a difference. And not all “Division I schools”–in academic terms–are equal.</p>
<p>jonri, I wasn’t in favor of using the SATS, that started here before I used them. But what’s silly is to think the entire student body at H is smarter than the entire student body at Vandy. No, actually that’s insane. There is overlap, however you want to define it. GPA Rank. Foot size. THe SAT thing was an artifice admittedly wrong from the beginning but as I said “was the nearest numbers to hand” or some such and when I first posted I said so. It was a long time ago , so I can see how you missed it. I’ll go find it if you must see it to believe me. ;)</p>
<p>I just can’t see why folks can’t admit that plenty of kids at Vandy could have easily been at H. That’s goofy not to mention incredibly demeaning to the Vandy kids. My gosh, H says they could make a class just as good out of their qualified rejects. Several actually. Couldn’t a few end up at a merit school? LOL. Or does that just curl your toes too much?And for someone to turn it down - my that’s a slap in the face. Is that why all the anger?</p>
<p>Chipper: You’re assuming that all of Harvard’s endowment is available to Harvard College. That is definitely not the case. No institution would want to dip into its capital unless there was a force majeure. tHarvard, like other universities, does not touch the capital; it only uses the income from the endowment for operating purposes. Philanthropic organizations are required by law to spend 5% of their endowment per year. That would make it $1.5 billion for the whole university.
Much of the endowment belongs to the professional schools and they will not share. To give you an example: The first Harvard provost was a econ prof. Despite the fact that he was provost of the university and not just FAS, he was not allowed to use the HBS swimming pool because he was not an HBS faculty. That’s how jealously the wealthy professional schools guard their funds. The end result is that some are very rich and some are quite poor (the Divinity School and the Graduate School of Education, whose alums are not rich) bu tthey cannot expect the Law School or the B-School to help them out. </p>
<p>When I mention that 85% of the funds are committed, this refers to FAS funds only. Some of that goes to faculty salaries and benefits (the largest portion), the Library, building maintenance, the salaries of coaches, and sundry funds that are designated for specific purposes (“the best paper on the Holocaust” or a lecture series on a some topic or some area of the world). I do not know if scholarships are part of the 85% that is committed or not, though I’m sure there are plenty of scholarships that are dedicated (descendents of xyz, students interested in such and such). </p>
<p>As for hoping for a gift from grateful alums, of course that is a key strategy, and the reason why colleges give tips to legacies. But it’s also a risky proposition. The Oracle CEO Larry Ellison decided not to make good on his pledge of $150 millions. Although his stated reason was the ouster of Larry Summers, some observers claim that he has a history of not following through on pledges and that he was more interested in appearing philanthropic than actually being philanthropic (a little competition with Bill Gates). </p>
<p>A few years ago, someone gave $5 millions to have the spire on Memorial Hall restored (it had suffered fire damage in the 1950s). Lots of people thought that the $5 millions would have been better spent on scholarships or some other endeavor more directly connected to education. But the donor wanted the spire restored and regilded and it was her money. It does look splendid, but FAS (of which the College is a part) is in the red.</p>
<p>Of course, Harvard is an easy target. What about Yale or Princeton or Swarthmore, etc… I remember when Yale was in such financial straits that it had to defer maintenance. Windows went unwashed, lawns unmown. It will be interesting to find out, for example, if the Robertson Foundation prevails in its suit against Princeton. If it does, it will make a serious dent into Princeton’s finances.</p>
<p>Cur, overlap and the extent of overlap is the crux of some part of this discussion. Yes there is overlap, probably a fair amount, between Harvard and Vandy. While there may be overlap, in terms of value and experience between Harvard and Podunk, in the other sense, the stats sense and what the stats may represent, there’s probably much less. That’s not really a radical statement.</p>