That public funds can go to private schools like Harvard is such a joke.

Okay. Why?

Some of the public funds come by way of Pell Grants. What's so terrible about poor kids getting a top-tier education?

Other mechanisms are research grants. You don't think it's in the public's interest to incentivize graduate students at top institutions to do socially beneficial research?

Help me understand what your objection is to federal policy, and what you wish federal policy were instead.

Harvard has an endowment worth more than $50B. Harvard grads are the ruling class of our nation, and their system of legacy admissions mean it’s essentially a hereditary system of nobility. This endowment isn’t taxed, and generates huge returns. Its one thing to defend poor kids getting a leg up with federal grants, but I’m not sure the ones who pay for it are the same ones who benefit, and the system seems to be enormously profitable for the private universities.

I noticed you didn't come close to answering the question. Complaining that people who aren't you are making money isn't a good look, and certainly isn't a sound basis for federal public policy.

You indicated a problem with the way federal funds are spent. What section of what federal statute should be changed? In what way should it be changed?

So far you’ve used straw man (you don’t support poor kids going to college?) and an ad-hominem (complaining that people who aren’t you are making money…) attack in your responses, which indicates a lack of argument in good faith.

I spelled out pretty clearly why somebody might have issues with taxpayers subsidizing the tuition of a Harvard graduate.

You said you opposed federal funding here. Pell Grants are federal funding. Accurate descriptions aren't straw men.

You expressed disapproval of the fact "[t]hat public funds can go to private schools like Harvard."

I tried to guess what you might mean, but it appears you've found those guesses insulting. So why don't you just clear it up so we aren't left guessing? What are the specific changes to federal law you propose as an alternative?

It’s not about specific changes to law, it’s about the principle of “Organizations with $50B in the bank probably don’t need federal funds.” Having them put skin in the game with an endowment tax would also be acceptable.

It’s not a straw man when poor kids do literally use federal grant programs to attend Harvard. It’s not a distortion or exaggeration of the original objection that federal monies went to Harvard.

I'll chime in with a suggestion. On average for every dollar of research money that goes to these institutions, another ~$0.70 is given to the bureaucracy to spend as it sees fit. The federal government could cap these rates at 40-50% down from 70% without a significant impact to research, since the research effort, including researcher salaries, are already paid from the direct funds. The bureaucracy will argue that it needs that extra money to keep the lights on, but in practice you see that the middle management tier of universities has expanded as a much higher rate than the research effort, suggesting it is relatively flush with cash compared to the boots on the ground types.

A lot of federal regulation of schools is only present thanks to funding. That means that by giving the school federal funding, the federal government receives some level of control.

In this case though, Harvard doesn't need it, and there are definitely enough Harvard graduates in the upper echelons of both the public servant and elected politician career paths of the federal government apparatus for no harm to ever happen to Harvard. But it's still an important point to keep in mind I think.

To your point, the biggest issue that I see is that elite schools are not growing physically to accept more students. When the eliteness is built on exclusivity versus the quality of the education/graduates that pits admissions of legacy versus new admits.

Its kind of like when Nokia used to sell the mobile phones with gold plating and the only way to get one was via an invite from an influencer. Basically creating the perception of value via false scarcity.

The first elite university school system that can physically expand to multiple campuses to accommodate new in person students and provide them with the exact same quality education and opportunities to network with legacy students will become Apple of collegiate education.

IMHO, the UC school system gets probably closest to this ideal.

The thing is, education doesn't scale infinitely like that. The bigger the class size the less attention you get from the professor, the less individualized the education is, the more generic it has to be, the lower the common denominator, etc.

And lots of colleges are known for their teachers. You can't always just hire another identical teacher: good ones are rare. At elite schools, they are often even famous and individually important in their field. You cannot scale that.

Sure, but when the US population grows by 10% (for example), Shouldn't there be a ~10% increase in elite teachers, allowing for elite colleges to expand hiring by 10%?

I disagree with the ratio being linear. No. I don't think 10% population increase results in that.

Hello I come from a country where a university education is free and the government will support your living costs while you are a student. In that setting, we have too many people in high school and not enough in vocational school (and the local high school is way more academically ambitious than American high school seems to be).

The way our societies & industries still function, too many highly educated people is not the end goal. There's still a long road to grow the percentage of "information workers", especially roles needing higher education, and frankly all that seems to mean is that you outsource all manufacturing to other countries -- I think we've seen lately that wasn't the greatest idea.

> There's a reason why Harvard is happy to take people's money and give them an education in the Harvard Extension School, but why they firmly tell those people they can't call themselves Harvard graduates.

Just wanted to add since I've looked into Harvard Extension School (HES): a HES graduate from a degree program is enrolled in the Harvard Alumni Association and does get to refer to themselves as a "Harvard graduate".

The degree is from the HES with a degree in "Extension Studies", which is the big distinction versus "real" Harvard, but I also suspect that beyond you first or second job, that becomes about as meaningful as your GPA.

Also importantly, that difference has come up in the last few years, to the point where the Harvard College Undergraduate Council and the Harvard Graduate Council both voted last year in favour to remove that differentiation from HES degrees[1]. It is however, Harvard University that has to decide, although it's quite interesting that the students - who are generally considered to be the ones who make the biggest fuss about "real" Harvard - are the ones in support of the move.

It's also worth noting that the child of a HES graduate is still considered a legacy, so that benefit is also conferred on their family.

---

[1] https://blogs.harvard.edu/lamont/2022/03/28/harvard-college-...

I have been watching this discussion but wasn’t aware there were recent votes about it. There is a diff between HES and Harvard College, as there should be since they are diff schools at Harvard University. Interestingly enough, something like 1/3 iirc of the classes are exactly the same invluding professor between the two. Pretty sure HES people would be satisfied if they were allowed to just put Harvard University by itself on their diploma or resume.