Supreme Court

[easyrider16]

Maybe but I don't think that's the issue. The issue is that the black community is not producing the same ratio of highly qualified applicants due to historic systemic racism. Without the tool of affirmative action, how do schools rectify the problem? If they do nothing, black representation at top colleges will almost certainly go down, because most black students will appear less qualified then their white peers due to this legacy of systemic racism.

Or at least, I think that's the argument a liberal would make.

[Coydog]

Without some form of affirmative action valuing diversity, it seems virtually certain a significant number of universities would turn down a fully qualified minority applicant if the admission meant turning down an equally or even lesser qualified white legacy or donor applicant.

I disagree with that. Most top tier universities politically lean far to the left these days and would still take the same amount of minorities as they would if it wasn't required by affirmative action. That may have not been the case in the 70's, 80's and 90's but the times they are a changing and in this case at least, for the better.

Imagine you are the coach of a ski team with one last position to fill. You decide on a good-ole ski-off between two remaining candidates. Richie Rich has been skiing since he can’t remember, his parents own a condo at a ski resort and he has attended a number of race camps and clinics – he’s a very good skier. Peter Poor is a good athlete, but his family can’t afford skiing. However Peter has managed to ski a few times due to school outings and the generosity of some friends.

At the ski-off, Richie beats Peter by one ski length.

Who do you accept, the kid with all the advantages and training who had the objectively better time or the kid who finished just behind despite having far fewer advantages?

Assuming Peter is at all coach-able, he seems to have more upside potential than Richie and Richie could most likely find another suitable ski team. So perhaps some coaches would in fact choose Peter, unless of course Richie’s parents pledge considerable financial support to the team Richie ultimately becomes a member of.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Maybe affirmative action isn't working in the sense we all thought?

[easyrider16]

So I assume the premise here is that affirmative action results in poorer folks generally having a better shot at admission to elite schools? Probably because the poorer classes are dominated by minorities?

Also it is quite unsurprising that the richest people can get their kids into the elite schools. I think all of us probably assumed that was true anyway. I'd love to see a law making it illegal to admit anybody because their parents made a donation or went to the same school.

[Low Rider]

Also it is quite unsurprising that the richest people can get their kids into the elite schools. I think all of us probably assumed that was true anyway. I'd love to see a law making it illegal to admit anybody because their parents made a donation or went to the same school.

Right - even forget about donations - it is logical to assume that the kid who is not applying for any sort of financial aid (i.e. the richest people who can just write a check for $75K per year tuition) would have some advantage over someone who needs a lot of money to go.

[Mister Moose]

Imagine you are the coach of a ski team with one last position to fill. You decide on a good-ole ski-off between two remaining candidates. Richie Rich has been skiing since he can’t remember, his parents own a condo at a ski resort and he has attended a number of race camps and clinics – he’s a very good skier. Peter Poor is a good athlete, but his family can’t afford skiing. However Peter has managed to ski a few times due to school outings and the generosity of some friends.

At the ski-off, Richie beats Peter by one ski length.

Who do you accept, the kid with all the advantages and training who had the objectively better time or the kid who finished just behind despite having far fewer advantages?

Assuming Peter is at all coach-able, he seems to have more upside potential than Richie and Richie could most likely find another suitable ski team. So perhaps some coaches would in fact choose Peter, unless of course Richie’s parents pledge considerable financial support to the team Richie ultimately becomes a member of.

I think you leave it up to the coach and his/her boss. They are best able to determine what is best for the team; whether to take the athlete with much more promise that might take them to championships, or whether the school needs money more to get through the year. Both might determine the future survival of the team, and those closest to the situation almost always make better decisions than armchair experts from afar.

Right - even forget about donations - it is logical to assume that the kid who is not applying for any sort of financial aid (i.e. the richest people who can just write a check for $75K per year tuition) would have some advantage over someone who needs a lot of money to go.

While some prestigious schools have such large endowments they can fund scholarships for many qualified applicants that otherwise couldn't go, they still need to pay the bills. Those full boat students keep the doors open. Sorta like the high end vacation week full price clientele pay Killington's bills while many of us can ski stupid number of days on a pass and still keep the doors open.

[Bubba]

While some prestigious schools have such large endowments they can fund scholarships for many qualified applicants that otherwise couldn't go, they still need to pay the bills. Those full boat students keep the doors open. Sorta like the high end vacation week full price clientele pay Killington's bills while many of us can ski stupid number of days on a pass and still keep the doors open.

Harvard endowment estimated at $41 Billion
Yale endowment estimated at $42 Billion
Princeton endowment estimated at $26 Billion
Columbia endowment estimated at $13 Billion
Dartmouth endowment estimated at $8.5 Billion
Brown endowment estimated at $7 Billion
Oberlin College estimated at $1.2 Billion
Tulane estimated at $1.1 Billion


Granted these are some of your most prestigious schools but to argue that they need the richer kids to pay the bills is a bit of a stretch.

Now for less "prestigious" schools

Stony Brook University (my alma mater) estimated at $500 million (It may be around $1 Billion now due to a recent gift.)
St. John's University (my MBA) estimated at $720 million
University of Vermont estimated at $557 million
UConn estimated at $594 million
Ole Miss estimated at $775 million


I could go on and on. Yes, there are plenty of smaller schools that require Richie Rich to pay full boat but it's hard to argue that Ivy League schools along with many if not most larger colleges and universities have endowments that can't fund ALL qualified applicants that otherwise couldn't afford to go.

[Low Rider]

Some schools probably could cover tuition for all - but the certainty don’t, and they want a portion of kids paying full boat.

[easyrider16]

Another key question that I think gets glossed over is, why are these schools so expensive? How much does it really cost to keep the lights on? I'm highly suspicious that it takes $50k per kid per year to educate kids. I suspect a lot of that money is being spent extremely inefficiently, meaning on things that don't confer a direct benefit to students.

[Bubba]

Some schools probably could cover tuition for all - but the certainty don’t, and they want a portion of kids paying full boat.

I don't mind, nor do I care about, kids who can afford it paying full boat. The issue is whether schools give preference to those who can (in order to "keep the lights on" per MM) over those who are equally qualified but need assistance.

By the way, it was announced that the Department of Education is looking into Harvard's policy regarding so-called "legacy" applicants. Good move, IMO.

[Stormchaser]

Another key question that I think gets glossed over is, why are these schools so expensive? How much does it really cost to keep the lights on? I'm highly suspicious that it takes $50k per kid per year to educate kids. I suspect a lot of that money is being spent extremely inefficiently, meaning on things that don't confer a direct benefit to students.

My company works for a few local universities. Seems they have lots of money to reinvest on campus of late. $20M - $40M buildings go up every other year, along with parking garages, field stadiums, campus wide repaving projects, and major pedestrian/ADA improvements.

[Low Rider]

Another key question that I think gets glossed over is, why are these schools so expensive? How much does it really cost to keep the lights on? I'm highly suspicious that it takes $50k per kid per year to educate kids. I suspect a lot of that money is being spent extremely inefficiently, meaning on things that don't confer a direct benefit to students.

It probably doesn’t cost that much per kid however, the kids who are paying “full boat” are in effect helping to subsidize The education of the kids who aren’t paying anything. I’m sure the universities have full tuition they need to bring in each year and then they balance out financial aid, grants, etc. from there

[Coydog]

Some schools probably could cover tuition for all - but the certainty don’t, and they want a portion of kids paying full boat.

I don't mind, nor do I care about, kids who can afford it paying full boat. The issue is whether schools give preference to those who can (in order to "keep the lights on" per MM) over those who are equally qualified but need assistance.

By the way, it was announced that the Department of Education is looking into Harvard's policy regarding so-called "legacy" applicants. Good move, IMO.

I was fortunate enough to attend a “needs blind” school where my application was evaluated without considering how I’d pay for it. After acceptance, the school offered me a financial aid package based partially on my parent’s income that was a combination of scholarships, loans and work study - work which initially involved flipping burgers and washing the dishes of the kids who’s families could afford to write the checks. Not ideal, but it seemed like a pretty good approximation of a meritocracy in college admissions as one could find at the time.

[Mister Moose]

Some schools probably could cover tuition for all - but the certainty don’t, and they want a portion of kids paying full boat.

While some prestigious schools have such large endowments they can fund scholarships for many qualified applicants that otherwise couldn't go, they still need to pay the bills. Those full boat students keep the doors open. Sorta like the high end vacation week full price clientele pay Killington's bills while many of us can ski stupid number of days on a pass and still keep the doors open.

Harvard endowment estimated at $41 Billion
<snip>
I could go on and on. Yes, there are plenty of smaller schools that require Richie Rich to pay full boat but it's hard to argue that Ivy League schools along with many if not most larger colleges and universities have endowments that can't fund ALL qualified applicants that otherwise couldn't afford to go.

I don't mind, nor do I care about, kids who can afford it paying full boat. The issue is whether schools give preference to those who can (in order to "keep the lights on" per MM) over those who are equally qualified but need assistance.

Let's do some math.

If we take an 8% return on Harvard's 41B endowment, and spend half on tuition for students (which doesn't leave much for growing the fund over inflation) that leaves 1.6B for scholarship and research et al. If we spend ALL on scholarship, at 57,261 in tuition, we can fully underwrite 28,640 students. If we spend half on scholarships, and half on research, we can fund 14,320 students. There are 31,345 students at Harvard.

It doesn't appear you can fund all of the students, even on 41B.

Here's how Harvard spends it:

Harvard.jpg (36.43 KiB) Viewed 2377 times

So Harvard is spending 20% of endowment return budget on tuition. (Only 7% on research.) That fully funds about 5,700 students. (Obviously scholarships are a sliding scale, this is just for illustration) So the remaining wealthy 25,000 students are all smarter than the rest of us? Huh. Maybe not.

Are the wealthy applicants really that much smarter? If you truly take the students with the best aptitudes, how many full boat wealthy students would that provide the school? I don't know, but I do know wealth does not equal intelligence. I suspect many get in due to their ability to pay full boat, and the endowment would not be as robust as it is today if they had say doubled their scholarship spending in the last 50 years to more evenly accept those with the most promise. And doubling would still fund only 11,400 out of a 31,000 student body. We still need 21,000 Richie Rich's.

Are professors overpaid? Are there too many administrators? Do they spend too much on sports? Could be. Don't know. What I do know is that many of you see the 'billion' and lose a sense of perspective. Same thing with the Exxon discussion.

I find it just a little pretentious if you think that you (royal Kzone you) know how to better spend Harvard's endowment when they are responsible for managing it to where it is today, and even that can't fund all the students. And that's for the wealthiest school, the numbers are worse for every other school.

it was announced that the Department of Education is looking into Harvard's policy regarding so-called "legacy" applicants. Good move, IMO.

My prediction? There will be a public study and outcry, it will find no gross mismanagement, and Harvard will go on being Harvard. And of the regrets I have, not going to Harvard is not one of them.

[deadheadskier]

25,266 is Harvard's enrollment and $50.9B is their endowment

https://www.harvard.edu/about/

They could fund more than they do.....