HMC FAIL
When I was in college, people used to joke about Harvard being a gigantic hedge fund that just happened to run a university as a sideline. These days, the university still has its faculty, its students, and (most importantly of all) its reputation, but the hedge fund seems to have run into a ton of trouble. It’s not only—or even especially—that they’ve lost money in the downturn. Rather, the crux of the matter is that some of their more exotic investments seem to have got them stuck in a nasty liquidity squeeze that’s forcing budget cuts.
Felix Salmon remarks:
And maybe Harvard’s alumni might start giving a lot more now than they have in the past. After all, until recently, any giving from alumni was dwarfed by the investment gains of the endowment, and so the incentive to add another drop to the bucket was greatly reduced. Now, by contrast, cash from alumni is desperately needed to meet the university’s annual liquidity requirements. It might even feel better, giving money when you know it’s going to actually be spent, rather than giving money simply to augment some gargantuan endowment.
My advice to my fellow alumni would be: Don’t.
If you want to give money to an educational institution, do some research and find a charter school in your metropolitan area that’s obtaining good results with a demographically unfavorable group of kids. Or find help our a regional public college of little repute that provides valuable educational services and could really use the money. Sure, if your checkbook is fat enough to finance a research endeavor that could make a major contribution to discovering an HIV vaccine or something it might make sense to invest in a world-famous university. But as a general matter, fancy schools that are already rich and famous and overwhelming serve students from privileged backgrounds are not a good target of charitable giving.
61 Responses to “HMC FAIL”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 31st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Of all the posts that MR Yglesias has done,this is one of his best.I have nothing against ivy leaged colleges.But why donate to an organisation that pays it’s leaders over $500,000 a year.
It is strange that you rarely hear about people donating money , or leaving an inheritance to the public school that they went to as a child.Even people who never went to college often leave their money to ivy league colleges when they die.
Maybe there are legal issues involved.I myself have very litle money to leave.But I would love to leave my book collection to my old high school libary.This way some of the new kids can learn to love reading , as i did many years ago in public and school libaries..
May 31st, 2009 at 4:32 pm
This might be the most sensible thing Matthew has ever written. It is probably not coincidental that it concerns Harvard. Writing about what you know is a practice most pundits would be well-advised to pursue, but it is much less lucrative, since the scope of experience possessed by most professional pundits is about as wide as their desks.
May 31st, 2009 at 4:33 pm
If you ever have kids, they’re totally not getting in.
However, I don’t quite get this:
“if your checkbook is fat enough to finance a research endeavor that could make a major contribution to discovering an HIV vaccine or something it might make sense to invest in a world-famous university.”
Why does it matter if all the money is coming from one person? If 10,000 people each want to give $1k to HIV research, that would make the same impact as Bill dropping another $10M. Only difference is when it’s one person you get the building named after you too.
May 31st, 2009 at 4:46 pm
SP, when Bill Gates – or an organization funded by 10,000 people – give lots of money (say, $10M to use your example), they can dictate how they want to see it spent, and furthermore they can over see how it is spent and can donate another large sum in future if they’re pleased with how their money has been spent. On the other hand, while a school will gladly take $1k off of you it probably won’t listen too hard to your ideas about what your money will do.
I’m also still a bit confused about Harvard’s endowment returns: it seems like they were regularly able to get about 3x the market’s annual gains, but have suffered no more than 1.5x the market’s losses. Does this mean they were actually well managed after all, whatever the logic of having a huge organization so dependent on investment income?
May 31st, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Will, we would all be better off if you stuck to writing things you know about. Unfortunately, it has been impossible to determine what, if anything, you know. What you know about racism is entirely wrong, what you know about national security is sickeningly wrong, what you know about fiscal matters is laughably wrong (see, for example, your hilarious posts on Social Security). You do seem to have a talent for condescension which, given your total ignorance of factual matters, logic, or intellectual honestly, and your bizarre affection for mass murder when done by the right people, gives you no rational basis for either an intellectual or a moral high ground.
So, when will you take your advice to Matt and restrict yourself to saying, well given your advice, nothing at all for the rest of your life?
May 31st, 2009 at 4:57 pm
In the small amount I’ve given to the schools I attended, they let you earmark it pretty specifically. Of course you wouldn’t be able to start a new program on your own with 1k, but you can pretty tightly specify any existing research program. True, money is fungible, so maybe your 1k donation will be offset by a 1k cut from the general fund.
May 31st, 2009 at 5:07 pm
“I went to Harvard and all I got was this stupid blogger T-Shirt”
May 31st, 2009 at 5:11 pm
[...] a comment » Yglesias shares my cynicism about the screams of financial pain coming out of the wealthiest schools in the [...]
May 31st, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Bravo!
May 31st, 2009 at 5:33 pm
“And maybe Harvard’s alumni might start giving a lot more now than they have in the past.”
LOL. I went to the law school, class of 2000, and I will never give them one cent, and most of my classmates and most people I know who went to the undergrad or business school have a similar opinion. Harvard’s student satisfaction is among the lowest of all elite colleges, and that’s the case for the law school and business school also. A lot of people just go there for the credential and the career advantages – and have a miserable time when they’re actually there. I’m glad to hear they’re in financial trouble – maybe it will shake up the institutional culture so that they actually try to offer a better experience to their students instead of ignoring students and just waving the Harvard name around.
The main reason a lot of alumni give to Harvard is so their own kids have a better chance of getting in. In most years, the overall acceptance rate is normally around 10% and the legacy acceptance rate is like 30-40%.
May 31st, 2009 at 5:34 pm
California is talking seriously about getting rid of student grants. You might consider a California public school that serves disadvantaged students (e.g. UCR, many CSUs).
May 31st, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I hate to sound like an idiot, but can someone please tell me whether that statue in the picture is supposed to look like the Master Chief holding some kind of futuristic rifle? Because that’s what it looks like to me, but then you have the knee-length trousers and socks, etc.
May 31st, 2009 at 5:38 pm
The main reason a lot of alumni give to Harvard is so their own kids have a better chance of getting in. In most years, the overall acceptance rate is normally around 10% and the legacy acceptance rate is like 30-40%.
Well, ask the people who were in the Porc and the Fox. I am sure they give generously to their alma mater. I certainly, if I were to be able to afford it, will give most generously to my prep school. It would be a thrill to endow it with a private island or something.
Plus, the point Yglesias seems to be ignoring is the altruistic satisfaction of giving. Where is the altruistic satisfaction of giving to a school where half the kids can’t speak English properly and use coherent grammar? What’s the satisfaction in giving to a school where the administration and the unions are locked in a perpetual struggle.
Far better to give to a place where there is actually a track record of putting the money to good use.
May 31st, 2009 at 5:44 pm
By the way, am I the only person who noticed that the tone of this (admittedly very excellent) post bears an eerie similarity to that of George Orwell talking about how “every decent and intelligent person will recognise socialism to be inevitable.” Or something to that effect.
Of course, half a century later, Mr Orwell, one of the best writers I have ever had the pleasure of reading, and one whose treatise on the English language has been the deciding influence on my writing, was proven spectacularly, astonishingly wrong.
May 31st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
On a side note, I really do recommend that every liberal-inclined person read The Road to Wigan Pier before speaking about maximising social welfare, like assisting disadvantaged institutions. It alone should scale back a great deal of their ambitions.
May 31st, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Adam Smith @#12
The image is explained here.
It’s the fifth image that comes up in Google Image search, so I assume Yglesias’s choice was deliberate.
May 31st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
“I’m also still a bit confused about Harvard’s endowment returns: it seems like they were regularly able to get about 3x the market’s annual gains, but have suffered no more than 1.5x the market’s losses. Does this mean they were actually well managed after all, whatever the logic of having a huge organization so dependent on investment income?”
Well, ultimately it’s absolute return that matters, not relative return. Considering that the S&P 500 has spent the last six years treading water, comparison with the broader market might not be the best way to look at it.
And by the way, in the real world “liquidity squeeze” is just an educated euphemism for “we don’t want to realize those losses this quarter”. Many investors worldwide, Harvard included, have lost a ton of money that they just don’t want to admit to themselves or anyone else.
May 31st, 2009 at 6:07 pm
I hate to sound like an idiot, but can someone please tell me whether that statue in the picture is supposed to look like the Master Chief holding some kind of futuristic rifle?…Adam Smith @#12: The image is explained here…
Whew. I thought it was just me.
May 31st, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Warren Terra:
Did you real Salmon’s article? Not only did they invest in a lot of exotic crap that went South. They also invested in toxic crap where you can’t take money out when you want. Do you know what illiquid means?
May 31st, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Cavin Jones @#19
I skimmed it, and I’ll read it later.
Point is, it’s hard to tell from the article how much their assets are down, but if it’s something like 30% (which seems to be the implication), then that’s not so different from the Dow – and yet they averaged 15% year-on-year for a long time. Any scheme that gives you 3x the market’s gains and 1x its losses doesn’t sound all that bad. The lack of liquidity is a problem, as it appears that Harvard needs to be able to access that money to make its budget, especially in a downturn. But if the bottom-line numbers are real, Harvard is still doing pretty well, and under normal circumstances could always borrow money to cover the liquidity problem.
On the other hand, if as Francis Hwang seems to suggest the “lack of liquidity” is a cover for a lack of value, all bets are off.
May 31st, 2009 at 6:26 pm
It’s interesting how Felix Salmon has leapt out of nowhere to become the single most indispensable read in the blogosphere…
May 31st, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Where is the altruistic satisfaction of giving to a school where half the kids can’t speak English properly and use coherent grammar?
Myles: Get. Help.
May 31st, 2009 at 6:43 pm
—–, consider yourself fortunate you weren’t here for the thread where Myles was saying that we should have helped the Nazis beat the Soviets in WWII. It’s generally better just not to read its comments.
May 31st, 2009 at 6:53 pm
“Where is the altruistic satisfaction of giving to a school where half the kids can’t speak English properly and use coherent grammar?”
Hey pot! This is kettle! You’re black!
May 31st, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Harvard lent its name to the hedge fund industry and legitimized it. Legitimized every aspect of the leveraged speculation mania which resulted in the crisis.
For years the press, popular and financial, ran slobbering wet kiss articles about the miracle of the Harvard endowments performance. The article doesn’t mention it but at one point it was somewhere around $30 billion dollars.
WTF was Harvard going to do with $30 billion dollars? What did it need $30 billion dollars for? Well it didn’t need $30 billion dollars and besides, it was never there. It was an illusion.
It cannot be overemphasized how important Harvard’s excellent speculative adventure was on the entire investment culture. Their entire modus operandi was to distribute money to hedge funds and to partake directly in complex deals often including derivatives. These were of course the smartest guys in the room, in the country, in the world, and they were kicking ass. Everybody wanted in.
May 31st, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Regarding MR MYLES SG COMMENTS # 14 and 15
MR MYLES SG
I enjoyed “Wigan Pier” as well.It is one of my favorites.But he did seem to seek out the poorest people he could find.Thereby finding the most pathetic creatures in the UK at the time.Orwell even expressed some disdain for working men who did not drink.He semmed to like the rebelious types more.
He actually was a lot like David Simon who wrote “The Wire” for HBO.They both seemed to pay more attention to the lowlifes and criminals than the hard working people.Yet they both were talented people who wrote great drama and commentary.
The reason that i bring this up is that Orwell has always reminded me of MR Yglesias as well.When they write well.They write very well.And when they write awful ,they are very awful.Sometimes they both manage to do it in the same paragraph.
I suppose that is why i enjoy both Orwell and Mr YGLESIAS. And it is why i often find them both so frusterating to read sometimes.
By the way. I have always thuoght that “Homage to Cataloni” was Orwell’s greatest work.
Best Regards to you MR MYLES SG.
May 31st, 2009 at 7:52 pm
I don’t think people have an appreciation for this; giving money to failing schools is like giving money to GM-Chrysler; money down the drain.
Inasmuch as I understand the liberal sentiment of helping the disadvantaged, in this instance it is misguided. You can help alleviate the symptoms of badness, with income support and so on; you can’t, however, change the fact of life, the truism, that there will always be excellent, successful schools, and there will always be awful, failing schools. That’s life. And giving the resources to the schools falling behind behind in the race is really not that different from giving money to GM-Chrysler.
I can almost guarantee that GM or Chrysler will be back in bankruptcy court in several years, and do this thing all over again. And so the same with say, an urban school in Baltimore.
May 31st, 2009 at 8:15 pm
I don’t think people have an appreciation for this; giving money to failing schools is like giving money to GM-Chrysler; money down the drain.
You are saying that, if I see someone drowning, I shouldn’t throw him a line, because the fact that he is drowning right means that he must, eventually drown, and trying to help him is useless.
Could you restate your argument in a way that actually makes elementary sense?
If I have a choice of X schools to donate money to, what criteria am I supposed to use to determine which are failing and which are guaranteed to fail?
May 31st, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Harvard could open branch campuses in other cities, and spread some of that “superior” education around a bit. Of course that would dilute the value of their brand. And that’s what they’re really selling anyway, isn’t it?
May 31st, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Myles SG Says:
May 31st, 2009 at 7:52 pm
I don’t think people have an appreciation for this; giving money to failing schools is like giving money to GM-Chrysler; money down the drain.
Inasmuch as I understand the liberal sentiment of helping the disadvantaged, in this instance it is misguided. You can help alleviate the symptoms of badness, with income support and so on; you can’t, however, change the fact of life, the truism, that there will always be excellent, successful schools, and there will always be awful, failing schools. That’s life. And giving the resources to the schools falling behind behind in the race is really not that different from giving money to GM-Chrysler.
I can almost guarantee that GM or Chrysler will be back in bankruptcy court in several years, and do this thing all over again. And so the same with say, an urban school in Baltimore.
Once these successful schools like Harvard decide to start spending the money to educate MORE students, your analogy will hold true. As it stands, Harvard is only interested in educating the same # of students as always. If they are so great at it, then lets set up some franchises.
And these are the students that are easiest to educate. Harvard is successful because it is Harvard, not because it is so much better at educating students than anywhere else.
May 31st, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Aatos beats me to it
May 31st, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Regarding comment #27 from MR MYLES SG
Mr MYLES SG
While we can both agree on liking George Orwell,I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you on comment # 27.
In PG county outside DC ,there is a shool called Northwestern High School.It has always had problems.But it also where Jim Henson went to school.Jim Henson brought pleasure to millions of us through his wonderful muppets .
Will these ” failing schools ” as you call them create thousands of Jim Hensons.Of course not.But they do have many children who want to learn.And who knows what famous person is in a “bad “school right now.Maybe a future supreme court justice?
I do not believe that money can help everything.But MR Yglesias is right.If you are going to give money to a school,you should at least consider a public high school or elementary school.At the end of the day what you or anyone else does with their money and their will, is their business.
My own high school would defintly be considered a “failing school”. It was actually a state youth home.But I learned a lot from my fellow students and my teachers.Did I do well.NO. But I do think that i learnt about life and learnt how to be an adult.
Am i rich or famous. No.Will i cure cancer. No.But i am a hard working tax payer who has never recieved welfare or any government hand out. .And many of the kids leaving these “failing” schools will be hard working tax payers as well.
I am sure that you want these kids to succeed as much as anyone else Mr MYLES SG. I think that we are only in disagreement as to how to make this happen.
As always, best regards to you sir
May 31st, 2009 at 8:50 pm
For those wondering about the picture:
http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/by_year/2007/halo3_john_harvard/
May 31st, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Some college pranks are works of art.
May 31st, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Harvard’s endowment is down from ~ $36B to ~ $24B.
One of Harvard’s major investments was in oil futures.
I pointed out to the administration that they were making money at the expense of poor people who could no longer afford fuel – but they ignored me.
They are probably back in the oil futures market via Goldman-Sachs. Hopefully the latest plunge turns out like the last one.
May 31st, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Having once taught at another wealthy and overpriced school (NYU)–with, of course, nothing like Harvard’s endowment–I know that charitable gifts to these institutions do not serve what most of us (including almost all their donors) would consider a truly charitable purpose. Some dedicated research donations, maybe, although these probably simply mean more salary for a research professor who already earned decently (as they should, i have no desire to deny them). Monies reserved for ’scholarships’ the schools just pay back to themselves in tuition, presumptively for more or less ‘needier’ students but not necessarily so. but in any case, the money goes right into the institution’s general purse. Like any other tuition dollars.
establishing or endowing ‘chairs’ of this or that almost always mean taking a salaried position off the University’s usual, regular budget, and providing that any tuition payments students use to take this course will show up as revenue for the school that cost zero dollars to earn (or nearly so, the school will heat and light the classroom and so on, but the teacher’s salary for which the students or their parents think they are paying will be covered).
Nobody making these donations or establishing these endowed positons thinks of it this way, but this is exactly how these grants are treated in-house.
and so on. “Scam” is too strong a word–it applies to what the wall streeters were doing, but not so much to Harvard and its sisters. After all, some learning is provided, some research is enabled, and so on. “Sharp practices,” however, might be a fair charge in at least many cases, since the pigeon (ehh….donor) is rarely taken precisely through these exercises to learn what they are, or are not, buying. in fact, even to seek to get a detailed, scrubbed-clean accounting (pre or post the actual gift) would in most academic circles be in poor taste. some donors do it, but not very many.
so by all means, find a better, more useful, more classically ‘charitable’ use for your money. I’ll give Gates, whom i do not admire greatly, credit for this at least–his money and intelligent application of it might actually end malaria as we know it. the rest of us can’t do something so huge, but we can send $ to Drs. w/out Borders. those people NEED a lot! and there are lots of other examples of not-profit enterprises that really make a difference and really need cash, of course. but you probably won’t find many colleges among the famous ones that meet those criteria.
May 31st, 2009 at 9:47 pm
sorry, terrible sentence structure there: i meant that you won’t find many famous colleges among the organizations that meet the two criteria of doing needed work, and really needing the money.
May 31st, 2009 at 10:28 pm
First, a big big thanks to SN for mentioning UCR (University of California, Riverside). If you want to give to a research university that also works really hard to recruit and also graduate students from diverse backgrounds (from working class to wealthy, from 1st generation to old California), UCR is an excellent choice. (Note: I’m self-interested). But any well-run community college or state university would make really excellent use of your contributions to help students directly, right now.
As for Harvard: when I went there, way back when, they practiced ‘need-based financial aid’. I thought that was both noble and sensible, and I have therefore practiced need-based charity when thinking of universities ever since. I had a great time at the big H, but I have never felt for a second that their need for my contributions was higher than the other institutions (of various kind) I donate to, now and then. And over the past decade, elite private universities were so disproportionately wealthy that it distorted everything from undergraduate recruitment to faculty hiring.
With the systematic disinvestment in public universities (from community colleges to flagship campuses) accelerating in the crisis, PLEASE consider supporting a public university near you, no matter what it says on your BA.
May 31st, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Myles utters: “giving money to failing schools”
Note the switcheroo, worthy of three-card monte. Neither MY nor any other poster recommended giving money to failing schools. They recommended giving money to good schools that serve populations with limited access to (higher) education.
But of course, for a paleo-conservative of the De Maistre ilk, any school that serves, say, poor people must necessarily fail, because the poor are always with us.
May 31st, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Regardding Brendan’s comments #36 aand 37
I think that you make many good points Mr Brendan.The most important point is that Harvard and other prestigous private schools aren’t run by bad people.It’s just that there are more worthy people that can be given money.It’s defintly not a case of good vs evil .
Thank you for your insight into how the money is spent.
“.
Best regards to you MR Brendan
by the way, I like threads like this where no one calls anybody an “asshole ” or tells someone to “shut the fuck up”.It’s a refreshing change from some of the other posts today.
Ihave nothing against vigorous debate. But some of these comment threads can seem like midle school.
Thank you to all the commenters here who know how to argue without insulting anyone..
May 31st, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Try this reaction to a wealthy school asking for donations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEUP0vH5cWI
May 31st, 2009 at 10:50 pm
The post is good, but the photo is even better.
May 31st, 2009 at 10:55 pm
How about donating time to your public school and helping it work?
May 31st, 2009 at 10:59 pm
But of course, for a paleo-conservative of the De Maistre ilk, any school that serves, say, poor people must necessarily fail, because the poor are always with us.
I am a Tory/Radical/Classical Liberal (what is commonly understood as Liberal-Conservative), not a paleoconservative. Paleoconservative is some bigot like Pat Buchanan. Get it right.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Tory/Radical/Classical Liberal (what is commonly understood as Liberal-Conservative)
From the perspective of the early 19th century when these terms originated, this is a rather strange mixture. Tories were paternalistic, agrarian, anti-capitalistic, anti-democratic, hierarchical, (high church or broad church) Anglican, monarchistic, protectionist. Radicals were mostly the opposite – democratic and egalitarian (in certain 19th century liberal ways), apostles of the free market and free trade, industrialist, often dissenters, opposed to aristocratic and monarchical privilege.
Which is to say – Tories and Radicals were more or less at opposite ends of the political spectrum in the early 19th century (this didn’t prevent occasional cooperation – often times the two would work together in individual constituencies to bring down Whigs candidates, but this was usually a perverse alliance, not a real meeting of the midns). I have no idea what it would mean at the beginning of the 21st century to be a “Tory/Radical.” It’s like if I described my political philosophy as “Federalist/Jeffersonian” or “Ghibelline/Guelf.”
June 1st, 2009 at 12:14 am
Tories were paternalistic, agrarian, anti-capitalistic, anti-democratic, hierarchical, (high church or broad church) Anglican, monarchistic, protectionist. Radicals were mostly the opposite – democratic and egalitarian (in certain 19th century liberal ways), apostles of the free market and free trade, industrialist, often dissenters, opposed to aristocratic and monarchical privilege.
Well, I am in favour of the free market and free trade, of an advanced, dynamic economy, but I am also an Establishmentarian. I am reconciled to aristocratic privilege insofar as believing that new wealth ought be absord via the conferring of peerages, etc, etc, but against aristocratic privilege insofar as I am opposed to an immobile, caste-based system, which wreaked so much harm in Crimea.
I guess I should make myself clearer: I am a Tory of the interwar/late Victorian ilk, in the line of Lord Halifax, Lord Salisbury and the like.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:03 am
“I have no idea what it would mean at the beginning of the 21st century to be a “Tory/Radical.”
Myles SG is a joke troll. Please stop indulging his attention begging nonsense. The sooner he finds greener pastures to prostitute his silliness, the better. He is simply not to be taken seriously.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:06 am
Harvard doesn’t need $30 billion anyway. The only thing funnier than them thinking they needed such a sum was their belief that they actually had it. It was mostly illusion.
Harvard was at the forefront of speculation as investment. Their embrace of it was an important if not vital aspect of the bubble era.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:05 am
Harvard actually had the money. As much as Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Bear Stearns, or anyone else had the money.
Curious that no one has mentioned the name of the chief villain mentioned in Salmon’s article, Larry Summers, now working for our new president. Summers is still closely tied to the hedge fund industry, receiving millions of dollars just last year, if I’m recalling correctly, and Salmon mentions that he made a particularly disastrous call involving Goldman Sachs that will be penalizing Harvard to the tune of $500 million+ dollars now. Oh, did you know that Tim Geithner is also closely linked to Goldman Sachs, as was Hank Paulson, and that they both have steadily hired from that investment bank to fill Treasury and other governmental financial posts? This is one reason I have repeatedly screamed to the heavens about Summers; his ouster was discussed as a liberal-conservative clash and a personality problem, when the reality was that his vision was fundamentally flawed, and it’s now bearing toxic fruit not only for Harvard but for the nation as a whole. The majority of the oft-ridiculed FAS faculty saw this, even if Summers’s fans among them and, more importantly, in the mainstream press were too blinkered and partisan to do so.
It’s all a scam, really. I’m sorry to hear that Harvard’s caught up in it, since I did go there, had a rough time but am glad that I made it through. Then again, Harvard has churned out many of the very people (from its College, Law School, and most importantly, Business School) who helped engender this financial horrorshow we’re trapped in. It’s poetic, in a way. A horrifying way. But poetic still.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:08 am
Or perhaps I should say Summers is a ghostly presence in Salmon’s article, and discussed at length in the Boston.com article by Richard Bradley.
Another way of looking at it is that MIT (Summers received his S.B. in 1975) has pranked Harvard again!
June 1st, 2009 at 3:31 am
If giving is only based on actual need + immediate progressive impact, no one should donate to anything but OxFam and MSF (sure, your local neighborhood house helps kids read better, but they rarely die of TB). But institutions like Harvard do most of the medical research that pharmaceutical companies are too greedy to do, and many of their professors (Marty excepted) are at the forefront of the debate with the nonacademic think tanks on the role of science over ideology in government. And, in my limited experience, the vast majority of the education Harvard provides to undergrads pushes them more towards careers of public, community, and international service. You might argue that Harvard is not the most in need of funding or the best recipient of your marginal dollars, but I don’t think anyone should feel bad about donating to a fairly worthy set of endeavors.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:35 am
And of course, Harvard being poorer will simply entail a greater shift of its resources towards its wealthier students: the law school and business school, which are funded almost independently from the endowment, will not be curbed in the slightest. The immediate effects will be on the relatively poor graduate students and post-docs, and on the extra opportunities provided to low-means undergraduates.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:09 am
Re Myles SG
Actually, I preferred Orwells’, “Down and Out in Paris and London.”
June 1st, 2009 at 9:52 am
As an alum (’76) who “enjoyed” the “benefit” of Harvard’s lack of genuine interest in undergraduate education, I am experiencing a very pleasurable amount of schadenfreude over this. I wouldn’t give them a plugged nickel if I had more money than Bill Gates.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:03 am
Myles SG, MattY advocates sending money to working schools that serve disadvantaged communities, in the same way you would donate money to a hospital that had a good record of treating sick people. Whereas donating money to Harvard is like donating money to a live-in health spa. Sure, being there might be nice and make you feel better, but your money is probably better spent treating the sick rather than spending money on seaweed wraps for the healthy.
Though, granted (hypocrisy alert), I regularly give money to a fund that provides money for college students at my well-regarded alma mater to get paid for the research they do with professors while they’re college students and provides money for professors to provide resources to their college-student researchers.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Actually, I preferred Orwells’, “Down and Out in Paris and London.”
His description of the pawnshop was fascinating indeed.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Oh thank god it wasn’t just me who noticed Master Chief. Thought I was losing my mind for a bit.
As far as the post goes, can’t say I disagree. I find it disgusting that places like Harvard have huge endowments, yet do almost nothing to help those who are more than worthy intellectually but lacking financially. The percentage of legacy admissions vs. non-legacy ones is a great example of this in action.
Good to see the younger grads realize this and start to send their money to more worthy places.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:32 pm
places like Harvard have huge endowments, yet do almost nothing to help those who are more than worthy intellectually but lacking financially.
Since 2006, children of families earning less than 60k/yr (the median household income, IIRC) pay nothing in tuition.
June 1st, 2009 at 4:12 pm
This may be true as a general matter. But it may be relevant that Matt, unlike very many of his classmates, probably did not benefit from Harvard’s very generous financial aid. That level of aid isn’t cheap. And it wouldn’t exist at Harvard or anywhere else without a very large endowment.
June 1st, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I’m all for giving money to schools and organizations that work with “demographically unfavorable kids,” but around these parts, there are charters that are run by businesses for tidy profits (e.g., “White Hat” charters) and other charters that although nominally non-profit, that are under investigation by the authorities for all sorts of financial improprieties involving big sums going to the schools’ founders.
So, donor beware.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:35 pm
The statue:
http://gizmodo.com/303505/mit-hackers-prank-harvard-statue-with-master-chief-helmet-assault-rifle