The New York Times wrestles with this question.
**********************
Update: A commenter notes that Cohen has taken the post down. Maybe he’s revising. I don’t know whether it’ll appear again.
The New York Times wrestles with this question.
**********************
Update: A commenter notes that Cohen has taken the post down. Maybe he’s revising. I don’t know whether it’ll appear again.
Trackback URL for this post:
https://www.margaretsoltan.com/wp-trackback.php?p=17846
September 28th, 2009 at 9:01PM
I just followed the link and got a "page not found" error. Second thoughts?
September 28th, 2009 at 9:10PM
It seems that the NYT article "Should You Give to Harvard?" was deleted about 30 minutes after I submitted a comment on the page. Perhaps others too had some strong words? Just for fun, here’s the comment I posted:
Please note that Harvard University is comprised of a number of schools – not just the College, but also the Law School, Medical School, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Divinity School, and so forth – and that Harvard’s endowment supports all of these schools. It is a bit foolish to compare Harvard University’s coffers to those of a community college with a small fraction of Harvard’s financial responsibilities.
Additionally, this article brazenly ignores the many Harvard students from low-income families, students who worked diligently in an attempt to escape the depressing cycle of poverty, pettiness or misplaced priorities that engulfed their parents. Coming from a now single-parent household with an annual income of $0 per year, I’m hoping that my Harvard education (and my personal drive and skills) will help me to simply get a job and earn a decent living, not make me sickeningly super-rich (like, admittedly, a good portion of my peers at the College), or a self-righteous martyr, or hopelessly dependent on grossly expansive government welfare (like many people in my hometown, and now, seemingly, my mom).
I’m a senior at Harvard now, but even when I was 18 I knew quite well that Harvard’s generous financial aid offer would be a big part of my ticket out of socioeconomic hell. Because of Harvard’s massive endowment, my tuition is reduced from approx. $50,000/year to approx. $3,500/year, something I can actually afford by working during the summer and the school year. My parents do not and cannot contribute to my tuition. Shelling out $10,000 to $50,000 of borrowed funds per year would just dig my family and me even deeper into the debt that has snowballed over the years and generations, setbacks and further setbacks. (Even the most "affordable" state schools to which I was accepted several years ago had a pricetag several times that of Harvard’s. I chose the affordable option; luckily, I believe it was also the best one I could have hoped for. I realize I am lucky.)
If we practice Cohen’s suggestion to essentially "spread the wealth" in terms of donations to educational institutions, and if financial aid awards were to follow suit (they likely would; they are often the first luxury to go), I don’t think many students – "rich" or "poor" – could expect much financial aid at all. Rather, many of us could expect to have a lot more debt.
-an earner
September 28th, 2009 at 9:40PM
me: Many thanks for the thoughtful comment. Let me try to respond.
I agree that the comparison with the community college is silly — Harvard is a massive affair, and its endowment must do much more than support simply one unit. I don’t know why Cohen, who has plenty of other, stronger arguments for his side, bothered with this point.
It should also be noted, however, that Harvard has lately chosen to blow itself up to massive proportions, and it certainly didn’t have to. I’m talking about the immense Allston project, which it now can’t afford — so there’s a bunch half-finished buildings sitting around, annoying the neighbors. In general, Harvard has made the mistake over the years of doing too much grandiose or unnecessary stuff (including, at a time when jobs in law firms are rapidly declining, hiring far too many law professors). It’s Harvard’s fault, in other words, that it can’t meet its commitments at the moment.
I find your story moving; I congratulate you on doing so well. There’s no question that Harvard’s immense wealth allows it to be generous with students like you.
But the point here is that Harvard’s wealth really is immense; the school can easily afford, for instance, to charge no tuition at all to anyone. For years and years.
The real question is one of Harvard’s hoarding of its immense wealth. It doesn’t pay out nearly as much as a responsible non-profit should from its endowment. Simply put, Harvard’s devoted to accumulating billions and billions of dollars, rather than actually spending significant portions of that incredible sum on education.
Do you know, for instance, how much Harvard until recently paid its money managers? Twenty, thirty million dollars a year. Each of them. Is that what Harvard should be doing with its money?
September 28th, 2009 at 10:00PM
What Harvard is selling is essentially its scarcity value. If it could somehow multiply its student body by 10X while still maintaining consistent quality, I doubt seriously if it would choose to do so, because that would dilute the luxury value of the brand and the ability of Harvard alumni to create dynasties by sending their kids and grandkids to the same place.
For an institution that is selling scarcity value to possess massive financial resources is a little grotesque, as if Maserati had GM’s manufacturing budget.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:25PM
Margaret, I am confused by your comment. How is Harvard both hoarding wealth AND unable to meet its commitments?
September 29th, 2009 at 12:38PM
human: Harvard hoarded great wealth until the economic collapse; with the collapse it lost a lot of money. It found itself with, instead of 35 billion or so, 25 billion (I’m not sure of the exact numbers).
When things were flush, Harvard had begun to spend an immense sum – over a billion – on what will essentially be an entirely new campus in Allston.
In the wake of the collapse, Harvard’s nervous, as well it should be, even with its billions, about enormous, longterm commitments of the sort Allston represents, and it has called a temporary halt to that work. It can, of course, in principle, meet its Allston commitments, since it retains immense sums of money. But it has decided to call a halt to work there — which has infuriated the local community, already pressed by Harvard in all sorts of ways to compromise with its sense of neighborhood, its streetscape, etc., so that the university could buy large tracts of land there.
I hope this explains – or begins to suggest – how Harvard can at once hoard immense wealth AND find itself – I guess the word would be unwilling – to meet its commitments.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:35PM
A tough one.
I have had some quite good students from Harvard – for summer internships. They are certainly superior to the Harvard undergrads I took organic chemistry with – at NU – during summer school in the sixties.
So on the one hand, while I am happy to see students from the lower economic strata attend Harvard, I am loathe to see people donate money to, putting it crudely, a fat pig. The tuition costs for one year at Harvard could support many more students at a state university and donation to such a place might be a better investment.
Or Berea College?
September 29th, 2009 at 6:38PM
ps. The post seems to be back up.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:15PM
Unwilling certainly makes a lot more sense 🙂 Thanks.
It kind of boggles me that anyone would feel it worthwhile to donate to any organization that is sitting on a $25 billion endowment.
October 1st, 2009 at 8:50AM
Harvard and NYU are exemplary, imho. They are, respectively, a privately-owned hedge fund and a privately-owned real estate investment trust. Each plays hard in the other’s specialty.
Because there are enormous tax advantages when reporting earned income and when shaking the tin cup for donations, each maintains its older brand, its educational mission.
October 1st, 2009 at 10:17AM
Good way of thinking about it, Townsend. I dare say both entities remain quite sentimental about that background identity.