4 ms·

Yes, Harvard disproportionately has many wealthy people compared to the population at large, but it also provides free educations to large numbers of people. La

by smeyer 11y ago

Yes, Harvard disproportionately has many wealthy people compared to the population at large, but it also provides free educations to large numbers of people. Last I checked, the cutoff was around 60k (meaning, if your family makes less than 60k, Harvard will foot the entire bill). The challenge of overcoming this skew towards wealthy students has more to do with education in general and recruitment than the price tag when it comes to some of the wealthiest schools.

Retric 11y ago
Harvard does this to maintain it's rankings not because there operating a charity. If the goal is to educate people with tax payer money giving lot's of it to a private group who then goes and spends a tiny fraction of that educating high achieving poor people is a ridiculously inefficient use of public funds.
- smeyer 11y ago
  >Harvard does this to maintain its rankings not because they're operating a charity I disagree. I'm not saying that the tax exemptions are the best or justified or anything, but Harvard has consistently been one of a few leaders in financial aid, dragging other schools with them. Harvard could have excellent rankings regardless of financial aid, but provides great financial aid to get the best students. When such a small fraction of the money comes from tuition, it just doesn't make sense to try to squeeze every last penny out of tuition and force less wealthy students out in the process.
hackuser 11y ago
One reason, at least, that they skew toward wealth is that they don't market themselves to others. Recent research has shown that the best poor students often have no idea that Harvard and other elite schools exist (as hard as that is to believe for most people on HN), much less that they might be accepted and afford to attend, and that they never apply. Remember that many of these students come from a world where few go to college, much less where elite schools are discussed or where their graduates and others with those kinds of career are around them. And the few who make it fail at much higher rates; from what I recall research points to the fact that colleges are geared toward middle/upper-middle class students, mostly white. The cultural adjustment is huge (remember these are 18 year olds leaving their neighborhoods for the first time) and few adults or peers understand their situation. Also, many have poor support from home, financially and socially; rather than receiving encouragement, they get asked why they are wasting time and money on college. In effect (and assuming Harvard follows those patterns) Harvard offers aid with the knowledge that few will take it, and without orienting their services to serve the new students. They could do much better. From what I understand, Amherst has gone a long way toward solving these problems.
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  I came from a middle class suburb outside Atlanta, and I had no clue where Stanford even was. Couldn't even have told you the state. I'd heard of it (mostly the physics program), but no idea what they were all about. I applied to top engineering schools, but at the time I wouldn't have put Stanford in the top 10. I'd have been wrong, but I didn't know anyone who went there or even applied there, which counts for a lot. MIT, the Ivies, sure. Cal Tech and even Harvey Mudd. But not Stanford. No doubt it was a regional thing at the time, and it may well have changed by now.
- smeyer 11y ago
  Harvard tries to recruit these students, but obviously isn't doing a good enough job of it. As a Harvard alum, this is somewhere that I'd particularly like to see them improve in terms of undergraduate education. When a majority of students are on financial aid, I don't think it's fair to say that "few will take it". Also, Harvard's graduation rates are so high that even if failing and dropping out are much more common among particular demographic groups, the graduation rate is still extremely high across the board (some would claim that it's too high and indicative of the extent of grade inflation.) There's a general philosophy at Harvard that while it may be hard to get in as an undergraduate they'll do everything they can to make sure you graduate. >Amherst has gone a long way toward solving these problems They have, but I don't think they have a massive lead over Harvard. If I recall correctly, both have similar aid profiles, are giving aid to a similar percentage of their students, have a similar percentage from low-income families, and have a similar percentage of students of color. I believe the graduation rates are also similar. Amherst has been a real leader in this area, so I'm sure there are areas where they're leading Harvard, and please let me know if my memory (or bias) is deceiving me or my information is out of date.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > When a majority of students are on financial aid ... A bit of a tangent: It also depends on how financial aid is defined. Many schools set an arbitrary price that very few students actually pay, the equivalent of a 'manufacturers suggested retail price'. In one NY Times story on this topic, at the school they looked into around 1% (IIRC) paid the MSRP; everyone else got a 'discount', the same trick salespeople have used forever. I've had people applying to college happily tell me, 'the school offered me $30K in financial aid'. I try to (gently) tell them that it doesn't matter how much 'discount' the school offers, it matters how much they charge you. They can arbitrarily set their 'MSRP' at $100K and give you $80K in 'aid', or set it at $20K and give you no 'aid'; the result is the same.

by smeyer 11y ago

Retric 11y ago

Harvard does this to maintain it's rankings not because there operating a charity. If the goal is to educate people with tax payer money giving lot's of it to a private group who then goes and spends a tiny fraction of that educating high achieving poor people is a ridiculously inefficient use of public funds.

smeyer 11y ago
>Harvard does this to maintain its rankings not because they're operating a charity I disagree. I'm not saying that the tax exemptions are the best or justified or anything, but Harvard has consistently been one of a few leaders in financial aid, dragging other schools with them. Harvard could have excellent rankings regardless of financial aid, but provides great financial aid to get the best students. When such a small fraction of the money comes from tuition, it just doesn't make sense to try to squeeze every last penny out of tuition and force less wealthy students out in the process.

hackuser 11y ago

One reason, at least, that they skew toward wealth is that they don't market themselves to others. Recent research has shown that the best poor students often have no idea that Harvard and other elite schools exist (as hard as that is to believe for most people on HN), much less that they might be accepted and afford to attend, and that they never apply. Remember that many of these students come from a world where few go to college, much less where elite schools are discussed or where their graduates and others with those kinds of career are around them. And the few who make it fail at much higher rates; from what I recall research points to the fact that colleges are geared toward middle/upper-middle class students, mostly white. The cultural adjustment is huge (remember these are 18 year olds leaving their neighborhoods for the first time) and few adults or peers understand their situation. Also, many have poor support from home, financially and socially; rather than receiving encouragement, they get asked why they are wasting time and money on college. In effect (and assuming Harvard follows those patterns) Harvard offers aid with the knowledge that few will take it, and without orienting their services to serve the new students. They could do much better. From what I understand, Amherst has gone a long way toward solving these problems.

waterlesscloud 11y ago
I came from a middle class suburb outside Atlanta, and I had no clue where Stanford even was. Couldn't even have told you the state. I'd heard of it (mostly the physics program), but no idea what they were all about. I applied to top engineering schools, but at the time I wouldn't have put Stanford in the top 10. I'd have been wrong, but I didn't know anyone who went there or even applied there, which counts for a lot. MIT, the Ivies, sure. Cal Tech and even Harvey Mudd. But not Stanford. No doubt it was a regional thing at the time, and it may well have changed by now.
smeyer 11y ago
Harvard tries to recruit these students, but obviously isn't doing a good enough job of it. As a Harvard alum, this is somewhere that I'd particularly like to see them improve in terms of undergraduate education. When a majority of students are on financial aid, I don't think it's fair to say that "few will take it". Also, Harvard's graduation rates are so high that even if failing and dropping out are much more common among particular demographic groups, the graduation rate is still extremely high across the board (some would claim that it's too high and indicative of the extent of grade inflation.) There's a general philosophy at Harvard that while it may be hard to get in as an undergraduate they'll do everything they can to make sure you graduate. >Amherst has gone a long way toward solving these problems They have, but I don't think they have a massive lead over Harvard. If I recall correctly, both have similar aid profiles, are giving aid to a similar percentage of their students, have a similar percentage from low-income families, and have a similar percentage of students of color. I believe the graduation rates are also similar. Amherst has been a real leader in this area, so I'm sure there are areas where they're leading Harvard, and please let me know if my memory (or bias) is deceiving me or my information is out of date.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > When a majority of students are on financial aid ... A bit of a tangent: It also depends on how financial aid is defined. Many schools set an arbitrary price that very few students actually pay, the equivalent of a 'manufacturers suggested retail price'. In one NY Times story on this topic, at the school they looked into around 1% (IIRC) paid the MSRP; everyone else got a 'discount', the same trick salespeople have used forever. I've had people applying to college happily tell me, 'the school offered me $30K in financial aid'. I try to (gently) tell them that it doesn't matter how much 'discount' the school offers, it matters how much they charge you. They can arbitrarily set their 'MSRP' at $100K and give you $80K in 'aid', or set it at $20K and give you no 'aid'; the result is the same.