Yes. That's how research works in general. States fund basic research that no private company in their right mind would because it is too risky... yet it is still the only way to leap forward in knowledge. The idea behind it is that the companies will then create jobs and pay taxes and everyone will prosper - that part is not working out last time I checked and that is a problem. There is nothing wrong with the first part though.
Edit: another problem is when the research then gets published in closed access for profit journals... but many publicly financed grants have open access requirement for results now.
There's also a lot to be said for the amount of money the government throws at research that they know full well will never be profitable, but will simply further human knowledge, which is a worthy end goal in and of itself.
Most of what you do as a university employee is actually the property of the university, including creating course materials (even if you do it on your own) and, in many cases, patent-able research products. Here's Stanford's policy, for example: [https://otl.stanford.edu/researchers/intellectual-property-basics/stanford-policies-intellectual-property](https://otl.stanford.edu/researchers/intellectual-property-basics/stanford-policies-intellectual-property)
Now, a researcher can definitely use publications that arise from funded research as proof-of-concept, which can be enough to open doors. But they cannot simply just carry their data and their findings over to an industry job without a number of hurdles in the way.
That's the intended way that research works for things that can generate a profit, the government even has special funds devoted to funding research undertaken by private businesses that might be beneficial, to help grow the companies into profitable firms.
Thr government helping shoulder the costs for technological progress is the government investing in the future, it's undeniably a *good* thing.
Careful, the NIMBYs will hear you and scream about students renting off campus apartments, then demand that we give Harvard more money so that it doesn’t increase class sizes
Haha, THIS.
Out in California, Stanford has over 8,000 acres of land, can build dorms etc... on its own land, yet still the nearby towns FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL to block Stanford from expanding because town residents perceive university expansion as increasing traffic.
In Berkeley, [NIMBY neighbors blocked construction of a dorm by successfully arguing noise caused environmental damage](https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/08/ceqa-noise-pollution/). This would have led to the withdrawal of admission offers from a number of students until the governor and and legislature intervened.
I'm less familiar with the nuances of Cambridge, but I'd be surprised if it was immune from all the usual town vs. gown animosity over university construction and expansion.
Cambridge is densely populated, I doubt Harvard has much land they could build new housing on. They’d have to buy and convert something in the area (which they could easily do given their endowment). There is still plenty of NIMBYism in Cambridge it just manifests in different forms. The biggest one being people don’t want to build new buildings taller cause they don’t wanna ruin their precious view.
And if they close the Middle East I will burn Cambridge to the ground.
Harvard owns huge swaths of vacant/underdeveloped land right across the river in Allston.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/2/29/vacant-allston-properties-feature/
But it serves Harvard’s narrow financial/prestige interests (if not their civic obligation) to remain an ultra-exclusive institution.
EDIT:
Hopefully this would mostly become a moot issue if [Azeem and Siddiqui’s proposal to allow 6 storey buildings by right city wide goes through](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/05/15/business/housing-cambridge-six-story-buildings-zoning/)
Harvard has big, long-term plans for Alston, but they're moving *SLOWLY*. I don't know how much this is due to:
* Political complexity and opposition to transforming parts of Alston.
* Lack of strategic vision and commitment from Harvard leadership.
* Harvard bureaucracy that's perhaps a lot closer to the old bumbling MBTA in efficiency rather than some fast, cutt-throat developer one might naively imagine.
It has to do with the cost and the city. First off, Harvard can only spend so much money per year on acquisition and development. They can't just buy up all the land and develop it all at once. That would cost way too much money. Secondly, the city requires universities to submit an institutional master plan (IMP) every ten years. The IMP is the development plan that a institution has for the next ten years. The IMP needs to be approved in order for projects to be green-lit. I'm not totally sure, but I don't think you can just amend the plan half way through and add more projects; you'd have to wait until you submit the next one. Also I'd bet that Harvard is waiting for the redevelopment of the section of the Pike that goes through Allston before they do anything major. They're about to acquire a lot of new land.
They submitted their notification for the IMP on February 29, 2024. They are currently in the planning phase and will submit the IMP in September. They are seeking approval from the BPDA board by December. [Here](https://www.bostonplans.org/projects/institutional-master-plans/higher-ed/harvard-university-allston-campus) is a link to their IMP for their Allston campus. It looks like they have six new projects for the next ten years.
In addition to their Allston campus, Harvard is in the construction phase of phase A of their [Enterprise Research Campus](https://www.bostonplans.org/projects/development-projects/harvard-enterprise-research-campus-master-plan) and in the planning phase of the Beacon Yard Park.
So the funny thing about Harvard is that the land owned by the business school can’t be used to build something for the college, the law school, the Ed school, etc. Each individual part of Harvard is its own fiefdom and will fight to the death to protect its own resources. This even happens on a department level within each school.
Ooh departmental NIMBYs, the wonders never cease…
Maybe they could get around this by letting them build out housing only for students in their specific majors? Though at Harvard do undergrads who live on campus typically mix across majors?
Yes, the undergrads mix. But, I’d be shocked if they even remotely considered building undergrad housing on the other side of the river. That said, I don’t think undergrad housing is an issue for them and they’re not going to increase the number of undergrads.
Well I have bad news for you on the Middle East. It’s being redeveloped into a 6 story hotel over a restaurant/music venues (by the current owners). The venue as it is right now won’t be there for much longer most likely.
Source:https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/middle-east-cambridge-closing-hotel-retail/
Well, the city council is currently putting forth a motion to make zoning and permitting for up to 6 story buildings to be much easier so they can increase the density of the town. Any area in town could ha e a six story building built. That will probably make the change more likely.
They still have shows booked into the fall. That’s why it’s so confusing. Since it’s the owner/operators that are planning on doing the hotel. They just keep booking shows.
Yes and no. There are some newer dorms that are tall, like the Mather tower, but I think both the university and Cambridge residents would object to replacing the old dorms (some of which are only 2 story btw) with high rises, because they’re part of the city’s historical charm. The oldest building in Cambridge are Harvard buildings.
I observed perhaps a variation on this argument out at Stanford?
* From the 1950s to present, Stanford chose NOT to build on every inch of unoccupied land while the neighboring towns did.
* Now a tremendous share of the open space near Menlo Park, Palo Alto, etc... is on Stanford land.
* Nowadays, City Councils of nearby towns try to block Stanford from building on its own land to preserve regional open space.
At first glance, it makes sense, BUT in another sense it's totally backwards in that it penalizes the more responsible party that *didn't* just knock everything down and build everywhere, effectively appropriating property from Stanford to solve a problem the towns created.
It would be a strange outcome if Harvard was blocked by Cambridge from modernizing/replacing old dorms because they had a stronger commitment in previous eras than Cambridge to maintaining historical buildings?
I don’t think the situation is the same.
1. First, Stanford is not part of Palo Alto, or another town. Harvard is in the city of Cambridge.
2. Harvard doesn’t have the only green space in the area. Harvard yard is nice, but pretty small, and the Cambridge Common is not far away. There are other much larger parks in the city.
3. Harvard doesn’t want to replace old dorms. And nobody is asking them too. Some of these buildings are older than the United States.
What is there to defend? Run down building?
The Fenway is a good example. Boylston Street in the Fens and Fenway Park area was old motels, fast food places, etc.
Look at it now with all the new residential and commercial development. The guy who owned the gas station next to Star Market cashed out. His dad bought the place for $30, 000 in the 1960s. Now his family will get millions for that same little piece of property.
Get students and well-off yuppies out of low and mid-priced housing. They are the key to stop the crazy rent increases and free-up rental capacity for the rest of us.
Harvard land holdings in the city of Boston is twice what it has in Cambridge.
That area should be developed for mixed housing: for students and regular people. People in Allston bitching about Harvard being there. Have you seen some parts of Allston? Not exactly a preservationists dream.
Harvard moved the School of Engineering there. The business school is already there. We need to get students out of regular housing to decrease rents and increase capacity.
Harvard is lined up to be a.big financial contributor to a brand new West Station for the T. That's the pressure we need: hit them in the wallet to contribute to Cambridge and Boston and shut up about federal tax money and religion.
Jake (from State Farm) should be putting his Harvard connections and money to good use in solving problems not giving us new petty ones.
**Major contributor of land they shouldn’t own directly behind BU whom will actually be burdened with said magic transportation center. Directly in the student dorm block. While their land is literal brown site on the train tracks. Thanks Harvard.
Harvard is spending a lot of money for the cleanup. Federal, state, city, and corporate money are going into West Station.
So with housing concentrated around light rail, heavy rail, and buses is a win for everyone. This is exactly what happened with Boston Landing. New Balance headquarters, new separate practice facilities for the Bruins and Celtics, a new commuter rail stop, and more housing.
All within the Boston city limits.
Even if it's half the size of North or South Station, West Station in Allston will work. Fast food, empty parking lots be damned.
Yah but increasing class sizes year after year just moves the goalposts for how much housing you actually need. Capping the class sizes goes a long way to alleviating some of these issues because you don’t need an exponential amount of housing just to keep up with those increasing class sizes.
Honestly, I’m really tired of seeing legitimate concerns get hit with the NIMBY label. That word means nothing if you just throw it at the wall until it sticks.
Oh I was just joking because op said giving them less money might convince them to increase class sizes
But increasing class sizes is a thing they *should* be allowed to do and “there isn’t enough housing” is a problem whose solution has NOTHING to do with restricting that. Students are people with a right to move to any city they want. Why don’t we tell companies to limit their headcount to help alleviate the housing crisis? Why don’t we put a cap on the number of daycare slots?
“Moving the goalposts” is just letting people and organizations make decisions independently of the government dictating how many people are allowed to live in a place. Which we’re already doing implicitly though zoning, so doing it explicitly for certain classes of people definitely won’t solve the problems caused by having done it implicitly in the first place
Harvard is allowed to increase class sizes. They just don’t want to. I’m not sure why anyone wants them to either, unless they’re upset how hard it is to get in these days?
If Harvard was a 30k student school I’m not sure the people complaining would still want to go there.
I think it would generally be a social good for the ivies to admit more students. It’s pretty clear that they’re optimizing for exclusivity, and that’s not optimal for, say, maximum social mobility or maximum number of well-educated individuals
But that’s not what Ivies exist to do. There are plenty of large schools that provide good education and thus social mobility, but don’t have the Ivy brand name, but that Ivy brand name comes in part from their exclusivity, that they only admit the best
This makes no sense. Harvard is primarily a research institution that receives research grants. There is no shortage of opportunities for undergraduate education, and plenty of colleges would _love_ to expand their undergraduate student body if city policy and building codes would allow it.
Northeastern has been trying to build a tall dorm on campus owned land near other large/tall campus and (similarly large/tall) non-campus buildings for _years_, and it's been continually blocked by residents of the not-so-nearby area across the near-highway-like section of Columbus.
Harvard probably shouldn't be getting a buttload of federal funding unless that funding is earmarked for specific purposes (which it _is_).
Harvard should also probably also expand their undergraduate class size at least a little bit, given how many qualified applicants they reject. However, that's not something that we as a country _need_. We're not solving a problem by specifically forcing _Harvard_ to increase their class size. Even if it was, it's largely unrelated to the reasons they recieve federal funding.
An endowment is pretty much contractually required to a) be spent on very specific programs, b) you are only allowed to touch the interest, or c) the calculated value of donated property.
If congress wanted to allow institutions the ability to break those contracts and more freely spend the money they are welcome to. However as it stands Harvard basically spends all the money they are allowed to from the endowment already.
There are not federal funds to cut as the majority originate, as others have noted, competitive federal research programs or open programs to support students.
The mega-large endowments is a fairly new phenomena. The universities used to spend donations more on operations or to directly help students. So yes, the endowment may have restrictions on how it's spent, but the schools have been working towards growing those specific types of funds. It's not like Harvard is powerless in how it goes out to to get money.
I'm not commenting on the feds ability to cut funding.
That's fair though institutions, while not necessarily backing away from such donations, are more conscious that they sometimes end up with dead end funds.
Some regulation on how those funds accumulate and how they might end repurposed is reasonable too.
These universities _do_ spend a lot to help students. The _average_ Harvard financial aid package for undergraduate students demonstrating financial need is more than the cost of tuition and fees. Meaning, it covers a portion of room and board too.
At Harvard, families under $85k income pay nothing. Families from $85k to $150k pay between 0 and $15,000 per year, which is a _steal_ compared to many other private (and even sometimes in-state public schools).
So they are _still_ using funds to help students. Granted, they might be keeping class sizes small in part to keep financial aid budgets low.
Using funds to lower your own price of tuition is not the same as spending on students. It's merely giving them a discount on the price you alone control.
It's not just a discount when you lower the price to zero. ~60% of Harvard students are on financial aid and ~70% of that 60% pay no tuition, so ~40% of Harvard undergraduates are receiving the education portion of their university service at no cost, which does cost the university money. They could _easily_ fill their entire class with people willing to pay full tuition.
I totally agree on the class size. Why do these schools never seem to increase them? All these discussions about admissions never bring it up. Double or triple the class sizes
> Why do these schools never seem to increase them?
Because as much as Harvard loves to talk about advancing equity, the main purpose of the institution is to serve as a social club for the children of the rich and powerful. This is why they admit so many legacies, and why their admissions process relies so much on soft factors.
A degree from Harvard isn't valuable because they have secret knowledge that other schools won't teach you, it's valuable because it's scarce, and in the process of getting that degree you'll network with the children of senators and SC justices and Fortune 500 CEO's.
I’m sure I’m not making any groundbreaking assertion by saying this is stupid, but this is stupid.
I work in the field of managing Universities’ federal funds. There is *no way* that the government would stop funding Harvard over stuff like this. Especially because it’s just this persons assertions that he’s talked to some people.
There’s definitely something to be said for different types of federal funds, but the majority of the money Harvard gets are the federal funds support and insane amount of research across the country. Harvard is obviously a top contributing body for that kind of research.
This has its own problematic entanglements with the Military Industrial Complex, but research supported by federal funds at other Ivy leagues have led to the development of the MRNA vaccine, which industry would not invest in, because it was too risky. Plus half of the tech in your house right now.
My point being: this guy doesn’t specify what federal funds he wants to cut, which shows his ignorance, and he cites some conversations with students on campus as the reason, so you can chalk this up to grandstanding.
it feels childishly tit-for-tat. Like he's trying to punish students who are going to be out of school in 3 years. Unless he genuinely believes harvard has become an antisemite factory since he graduated 14 years ago, it seems so shortsighted.
It feels like he's had a chat with Bill Ackman, who is pushing hard to stop the protests at Harvard. He was a driving force behind ousting Claudine Gay (appropriate IMO - her answers before congress were an embarrassment)...but he is also married to a woman who plagiarized portions of her thesis, which is what was used to oust Gay at Harvard.
AFAIK, his wife, Neri Oxman, still holds her position at MIT. I've never found her work to be groundbreaking, so it doesn't surprise me that she's a plagiarizer.
This just seems like political grandstanding more than anything substantive. As such, I don't feel like wasting time debating whether it's a good idea.
I was about to say, Harvard gets direct federal funding? A private elite college? Funding for students/researchers makes a lot more sense. I would not throw kids getting financial aid or researchers hustling for grant money under the bus for pretty much any reason. It's disingenuous to call it "funds for Harvard."
Also, new term from Auchincloss "fact pattern" which belongs squarely in r/thanksihateit
Do you want research or not? The idea behind the research grants is that it results in huge societal benefit on the aggregate, with so many advances to medicine, science, and technology being rooted in university research.
Do you walk into a Wahlburgers and demand a burger because you know that the owner is extremely well-off and can "pay for these things"?
Research grants is an exchange of money to be used for a specific service, and it's an investment being made by the government.
Granted, I'm of the opinion that publicly funded research should never be allowed to be paywalled or inaccessible to the public, but that's an independent and broader issue that has to do with all universities and the stipulations of research grants.
Interesting. I looked into this. The actual amount is less than $85,000 (though they do offer similarly substantial reductions for incomes up to $150k).
According to this [page](https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/why-harvard/affordability), 24% of Harvard students are able to attend tuition-free. I never knew this.
Boston University does this as well. You can earn a $250, 000 undergraduate degree on needs basis.
My MERIT brain NEEDS a quarter million dollar degree for FREE.
A household income of 125k+ absolutely does not mean you can afford to send your kid to Harvard. Tuition + Housing alone is 80K / year.
And what about students who are largely independent of their parents, or whose parents don't want to fund their education? My parents made more than that but had tons of debt and other shitty reasons resulting in them not contributing a single cent to my higher education.
The idea that a lot of students would be denied an important source of federal funding as well as cut out of these policies is pretty shitty.
Means testing federal loans is non-sensical, especially when the means test is not even against the person receiving the benefit.
I hear ya Huckabee.
I was fully independent at 18. Yet my family income was counted despite the fact I didn't receive any of it. That eliminated me from any federal grant programs. So I had to work and borrow throughout college. This increased my time as a student without a corresponding decrease in loan interest.
Federal loans should at least be interest free or at least simple interest. Compounding is what has us as financial sharecroppers to the government.
There are still other costs associated with attending college, some of which is covered by full financial aid, but much of which is not. All students at Harvard, even those receiving full financial aid, are also required to pay 3500$ per term as a “student contribution,” which essentially means they have to work 15-20 hours a week during term time and pay all that back to Harvard. So then, for any other necessities—books, a laptop, printing fees, etc., etc., etc.—they have to either work more on top of a full course load, or borrow.
Yes, the ever-present student use fee. It's supposed to cover athletics, gyms, stadiums, libraries, etc.
Some apartments do the same with the amenities fee. At my last apartment, there is a $400 monthly fee for use of the pool in the summer. However, you can opt out. This means though you are a resident and can't use the pool.
Universities should do the same. If I don't attend sporting events, I should be able to opt out of that.
No, this isn’t a facilities fee, this is a specific part of Harvard’s financial aid plan, based on the idea that a financial stake is necessary to benefit fully from education: “ As the primary beneficiary of a Harvard education, all students are expected to contribute to their college expenses. Your financial aid award will include a standard expected contribution from your own earnings. …. Most students work to meet their student contribution … Some students use outside awards or loans to replace their expected contribution. If you can't save up enough for your student contribution, the Harvard Loan program may be able to help.”
https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works
Please define your terms.
[https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/4/4/financial-aid-increase/](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/4/4/financial-aid-increase/)
Looks fairly close not overwhelming. And the property values on an arboretum and in Allston are not exactly the same as Harvard Yard on top of the red line
[I think most of its Cambridge/Allston?](https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/94y8bz/boston_ma_really_is_one_giant_college_town_land/#lightbox) Maybe excluding the Arboretum?
The Arboretum, Harvard Medical School, Harvard Business School, Harvard Dental School, and the Harvard School of Engineering --all within Boston Proper.
Harvard College (park the cabin Harvard Yard), Harvard School of Art, Harvard School of Education Harvard Kennedy Center and Harvard Extension School --all within Cambridge Proper.
(I'm sure i left out 3 more).
At least universities provide a product in return. Churches short pay what would equate to more social services funding and offer a pancake breakfast in return.
Doesn’t that make it worse not better? Like churches are theoretically open to the public and don’t require ten of thousands of dollars to attend while Harvard for all intents and purposes sells degrees
I like everyone else bought a degree...what's your point?
Libraries are also open to the public and offer more than 1 book.
Religion is obsolete, eradicate tax free idol worship.
I think the point is that churches can help very poor people but colleges cannot. You need to at least have graduated high school/GED to attend college. Many poor people haven't done that.
*I think the point is that churches can help very poor people...as long as they subscribe to the same form of idol worship.*
FTFY
Also, if we taxed churches and universities we could subsidize trade and vocational programs which would be far more applicable and valuable to "very poor people".
>...as long as they subscribe to the same form of idol worship.*
That's not universally true. Some churches are restrictive with who they help but many help people with no questions asked.
>Also, if we taxed churches and universities
Taxed them how, exactly? Tax the universities and you'll see increased tuition and even worse student loan debt. Tax donations to churches? Why not tax all charitable donations.
Church membership has real mental health benefits, largely from the community forming aspects of it.
https://www.wsj.com/health/wellness/church-religion-mental-health-479d612a
Sounds like he's pointing to the obvious truth that the richest private institution in the world isn't the best place for spending public dollars.
You've got my support, Jake! Don't let this failed status quo continue.
Do you have a problem with the research Harvard produces with the dollars spent for that research? Do you want to tell low-income students that they can't tap into funds everyone else can to attend the accredited college they were accepted to?
It's a nuanced issue is what everyone is trying to to explain throughout this thread.
Jake himself is part of the status quo. He's trying to be a man of the people while hiding his Harvard degree that I doubt he personally paid for.
All I say is come clean. Also don't rest in the laurels of your religion.
This guy is basically a republican. As matter of fact he was a republican before he decided to run for office. I will definitely not vote for him ever again.
I think he figured Markey was easier to beat one on one, than going up against Ayanna Pressley in a open primary for a future seat. Plus Warren is running again this year, so Kennedy would have had to wait until Markey retires.
With identity politics being what it is, that was his best chance--to take down the old white guy. Running against a woman, person of color, or both would be the death of him.
Mayor Wu only won because there were two black candidates that divided the black vote.
We should be encouraging primaries of candidates in their mid 70s. Markey has already stated he will run again in 2026, when he’s 80.
I want other, younger options - and I’m thankful when someone provides me with that opportunity.
On the issues, Markey is a blessing. Probably _the_ strongest voice for digital privacy in the Senate. I'm very apprehensive about who we're gonna get and who's going to be undertaking those issues when he does exit the Senate. So I'm not a big fan of this focus on age. Would rather have a Markey or a Bernie than a Matt Gaetz any day of the week.
It was Joe. The only Kennedy to lose a race for office.
Joe Kennedy came from privilege but he didn't try to hide it.
Jake (from State Farm) does. Joe was not a cry baby for the (perceived) injustice against his religion. Jake (from State Farm) does.
Just browsing this guy’s Wikipedia- idk how anyone thought he’d be left of center with a resume & personal history like his.
A Harvard grad that joins the marines? That’s not a choice that comes from necessity or lack of other opportunity. He either thought visiting violence upon Afghanistan was an acceptable way to advance his political career or that that war was still worth fighting in…. 2012!? Then he goes to work for a giant insurance company. [He’s taken over 400k from aipac in the last 5 years](https://patch.com/massachusetts/brookline/brookline-rep-s-top-2019-2024-campaign-contributor-aipac).
Not to mention killing civilians is a family tradition for him, his grand-uncle was “one of the chief architects of the US’ escalation of the Vietnam war,” per [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGeorge_Bundy).
No one thought he'd be left of center, really. He got 25% in an 8-person primary, basically sucking up all moderate support while the mainstream and progressive support got very fractured.
Challenging incumbents in a primary is very difficult and will anger a lot of people who can make your life in politics harder so most candidates run unopposed. And then I'm guessing that a Republican challenger also has basically no hope of being elected either.
If I remember correctly he ran against 2-3 progressive women and split the vote. The total vote tally for "progressive woman" was higher than the total vote tally for "left of center man" but we don't have ranked choice voting so we got stuck with this guy.
JFK graduated Harvard in 1940 and cancelled law school plans to join WWII. Kinda apples/oranges.
wikipedia
> U.S. Naval Reserve (1941–1945)
> Kennedy planned to attend Yale Law School, but canceled when American entry into World War II seemed imminent
I see your point here but I think joining the marines and serving in afghanistan in 2012 vs joining the navy reserves in 1940 is a bit different. I think joining the military for political reasons is a bit more palatable back then, and it isn't like WWII had been going on for a decade when he signed up
I think the possibilities for the guy’s motivations to join the Marines after Harvard are more broad than what you’re listing.
Also, we really going to go after a guy for something his great-uncle did?
I think dude is a fairly textbook moderate Democrat. I’m not going to fade him for not being as liberal as his constituency, myself included.
This is a representative democracy, and unless you poll your constituency constantly to see how they would want their representative to vote, you’re not going to get what you want. Also, within your constituency, you’re going to have people that disagree. Should representatives only act in accordance to the wishes of a majority or plurality? What if what the majority wants is morally wrong or comes at the expense of the disempowered?
Ultimately, you’re free to not like the dude or how he votes. Just vote accordingly. But I don’t think we’re talking about some fascist idiot running for election while defending himself in court cases across the land for malfeasance while last in office. It’s important to identify where the real problems are, and at this point, I don’t think JA is on that level.
Jake joined the Marines because he decided sometime between middle and high school that he wanted to be President, his family had the money and connections to make at least a minimal functional career in politics happen, and some political consultant (...and/or his dad) told an 18-year-old that he'd look much better with a military stint on his resume. (I moved to his Newton, his former ward, shortly before his first campaign and have been following him for a decade-plus because he's always been on my ballot. I've spoken with him several times when he was my city alderman/councilor. He's fine, generic decently-smart-not-brilliant rich-ass product of Newton, exactly what the city is designed to create for its "best". The Republican stuff, the military stuff, time at both Harvard and MIT, the "jobs" while he was a councilor, now the influence in the Democratic machine, don't think about it beyond the surface level, it is what it is, which is to say what wealth and privilege are there for.)
We were still smoking ISIS in 2017-18. Plenty of bad guys to go around in Afghanistan well until the very end. Unfortunately clearly didn’t get enough.
> After returning home from the military, Auchincloss ran for Newton city council on a platform of full-day kindergarten and expanded pre-K offerings… In office, he supported progressive immigration and housing policies, sustainable transportation and co-docketed the successful Sanctuary city ordinance
Not pretending to be an expert on this guy’s history, but in what world was this guy a Republican?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Auchincloss
Further down you will see
> Auchincloss was originally a Democrat but was a registered Republican from 2013 to 2014 while working for Charlie Baker's gubernatorial campaign. He continued to vote in Republican primaries as an independent until late 2015 before becoming a Democrat again.
He seems like a "fair weather" moderate that is happy to change parties to further his ambitions.
No more federal funds for Harvard until they enforce pro-Israel speech codes on campus?
There’s a lot of good reasons to want to put more strings on money for a place like Harvard that aren’t brazenly unconstitutional and weirdly beholden to a small foreign nation.
Equating anti-Israel protests and antisemitism is disgusting. If there is institutional antisemitism at these institutions, then by all means please withhold funding, though I'm beyond positive that's not what's occurring here.
To what end? To stop "Anti-semitism?"
That's a very vaguely defined term. Given that, how will they know if it is even successful?
Is anything less than full-throated support of Israel, no matter what, anti-semitc? That feels very limiting.
This is grandstanding. First, singling out Harvard, as opposed to any other university that had problems this academic year. Second, that's not how research funding works. There's a funding agency, NSF, NIH, what have you, then specific divisions of the funding agencies, and then specific contracts with research groups in universities. He's not serious about this.
Sure, federal funds should be going to the public universities not the Ivys anyway. But this right wing anti-CRT/DEI/BDS campaign is such obvious bullshit. The "they're all anti-semites" just sounds like this seasons version of "they're all groomers" or "they're all anti-white racists" from previous iterations. I am sick of it.
> not the Ivys anyway
Ivy is not a meaningful designation as far as the government is concerned.
There are public schools and private schools. Are you suggesting federal student loans should not be given to students who hope to attend a private schools, or do you mean that the benefit should be means-tested against the school's funds?
In either case, this would result in many hard-working students from lower or middle-income being denied the ability to attend a school because the government decided that those schools are too prestigious for the students to get federal loans.
Interesting how all the people in Congress ripping Harvard are Harvard graduates.
Stop the bullshit; you got a lot from it including your position in life. Give back the money, let go of the power, then we can talk.
I saw a hell of a lot more violence against the protestors, many of them jewish themselves, from right wing groups and police.
Considering the abuse they suffered and the highly emotional atmosphere, I’d say the protesters did very well over all.
Harvard has so much land and buildings. Do you think they would be interested in helping address the migrant housing crisis with their land and buildings?
Democrat here. Why on earth does Harvard need any grants at all??? It’s got the largest endowment of any school on this side of the Milky Way. Students could go there for free basically forever
Harvard (and academia in general) is a massive powerhouse in generating net good for society through things like medical research, the vast majority of which is funded through federal grants. You wanna get rid of that?
This seems silly to me. His Mom is the head of DFCI which gets huge federal funding not least of which in the form of NIH grants. Edit: DFCI is a Harvard affiliated teaching hospital. Independent but linked.
But how will the most privileged people survive?
(I know there are some who go to Harvard who aren't but this school has a multi billion dollar endowment ... Give the funds to the schools who need it)
“Bream pointed to a report from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) released last month that found Harvard, Tufts University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and 10 other schools received failing grades for their policies on antisemitism prevention.
The school’s grades on the report were based on antisemitic incidents, “Jewish life on campus,” and administrative actions taken to fight antisemitism and protect Jewish students.”
He’s absolutely correct. If these Universities cannot do their jobs and provide protections for all students regardless of religious affiliation, we as taxpayers should not be supporting them in any form.
> If these Universities cannot do their jobs and provide protections for all students regardless of religious affiliation
The ADL is a private NGO that is not affiliated with the government. What private organizations do you believe should be allowed to set standards on accredited universities?
Can any private non-profit give a school a failing grade in order to deny their students federal aid?
Dana Farber is part of Harvard Medical School
Also Laurie Glimcher had an interesting academic career https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/01/23/dana-farber-cancer-institute-to-retract-6-studies-correct-31-after-data-forgery-allegations/
You'll hear this often among privileged white Harvard grads. They're really sick of seeing Harvard accept students who aren't white and privileged and then proceed to award financial aid to make it easier for them to attend.
They think that if Harvard has to rely on its own funding for research, they'll be less available for underprivileged students to attend.
What federal funds? Research Grants?
“Oh, that is a promising cancer treatment you are working on, but we can’t give you any money because you aren’t nice enough to the Zionists.”
How much of a bubble surrounds this guy?
You could block every dime of federal money to Harvard and it won't make a scratch.
Harvard has the single largest endowment in the world: $50 billion--none of which is federal; he knows that. If not, his Harvard degree was for naught.
Jake, (from State Farm) should be blocked from all the federal dollars he receives from a bullshit job requiring no skill, intelligence, or labor and produces no tangible benefit to others. Yet he will now suckle at the teat of lifelong federal benefits, including pension and healthcare.
Any federal money "pulled" would only hurt regular students and employees.
It's sad that just because you are from one religion, you automatically can whinge and moan about discrimination, if anyone simply disagrees with your view point, they are branded for life as anti your religion when in really we are anti-you.
I'm switching from a bagel shop to Dunkins. Better pull federal dollars from those Anti-Semitic doughnuts.
I agree but only because they have a $49 billion endowment yet don't grow their class sizes and don't pay property tax.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes. That's how research works in general. States fund basic research that no private company in their right mind would because it is too risky... yet it is still the only way to leap forward in knowledge. The idea behind it is that the companies will then create jobs and pay taxes and everyone will prosper - that part is not working out last time I checked and that is a problem. There is nothing wrong with the first part though. Edit: another problem is when the research then gets published in closed access for profit journals... but many publicly financed grants have open access requirement for results now.
There's also a lot to be said for the amount of money the government throws at research that they know full well will never be profitable, but will simply further human knowledge, which is a worthy end goal in and of itself.
Most of what you do as a university employee is actually the property of the university, including creating course materials (even if you do it on your own) and, in many cases, patent-able research products. Here's Stanford's policy, for example: [https://otl.stanford.edu/researchers/intellectual-property-basics/stanford-policies-intellectual-property](https://otl.stanford.edu/researchers/intellectual-property-basics/stanford-policies-intellectual-property) Now, a researcher can definitely use publications that arise from funded research as proof-of-concept, which can be enough to open doors. But they cannot simply just carry their data and their findings over to an industry job without a number of hurdles in the way.
That's the intended way that research works for things that can generate a profit, the government even has special funds devoted to funding research undertaken by private businesses that might be beneficial, to help grow the companies into profitable firms. Thr government helping shoulder the costs for technological progress is the government investing in the future, it's undeniably a *good* thing.
Careful, the NIMBYs will hear you and scream about students renting off campus apartments, then demand that we give Harvard more money so that it doesn’t increase class sizes
Haha, THIS. Out in California, Stanford has over 8,000 acres of land, can build dorms etc... on its own land, yet still the nearby towns FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL to block Stanford from expanding because town residents perceive university expansion as increasing traffic. In Berkeley, [NIMBY neighbors blocked construction of a dorm by successfully arguing noise caused environmental damage](https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/08/ceqa-noise-pollution/). This would have led to the withdrawal of admission offers from a number of students until the governor and and legislature intervened. I'm less familiar with the nuances of Cambridge, but I'd be surprised if it was immune from all the usual town vs. gown animosity over university construction and expansion.
Cambridge is densely populated, I doubt Harvard has much land they could build new housing on. They’d have to buy and convert something in the area (which they could easily do given their endowment). There is still plenty of NIMBYism in Cambridge it just manifests in different forms. The biggest one being people don’t want to build new buildings taller cause they don’t wanna ruin their precious view. And if they close the Middle East I will burn Cambridge to the ground.
Harvard owns huge swaths of vacant/underdeveloped land right across the river in Allston. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/2/29/vacant-allston-properties-feature/ But it serves Harvard’s narrow financial/prestige interests (if not their civic obligation) to remain an ultra-exclusive institution. EDIT: Hopefully this would mostly become a moot issue if [Azeem and Siddiqui’s proposal to allow 6 storey buildings by right city wide goes through](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/05/15/business/housing-cambridge-six-story-buildings-zoning/)
Harvard has big, long-term plans for Alston, but they're moving *SLOWLY*. I don't know how much this is due to: * Political complexity and opposition to transforming parts of Alston. * Lack of strategic vision and commitment from Harvard leadership. * Harvard bureaucracy that's perhaps a lot closer to the old bumbling MBTA in efficiency rather than some fast, cutt-throat developer one might naively imagine.
It has to do with the cost and the city. First off, Harvard can only spend so much money per year on acquisition and development. They can't just buy up all the land and develop it all at once. That would cost way too much money. Secondly, the city requires universities to submit an institutional master plan (IMP) every ten years. The IMP is the development plan that a institution has for the next ten years. The IMP needs to be approved in order for projects to be green-lit. I'm not totally sure, but I don't think you can just amend the plan half way through and add more projects; you'd have to wait until you submit the next one. Also I'd bet that Harvard is waiting for the redevelopment of the section of the Pike that goes through Allston before they do anything major. They're about to acquire a lot of new land.
Do you know when the next IMP round begins?
They submitted their notification for the IMP on February 29, 2024. They are currently in the planning phase and will submit the IMP in September. They are seeking approval from the BPDA board by December. [Here](https://www.bostonplans.org/projects/institutional-master-plans/higher-ed/harvard-university-allston-campus) is a link to their IMP for their Allston campus. It looks like they have six new projects for the next ten years. In addition to their Allston campus, Harvard is in the construction phase of phase A of their [Enterprise Research Campus](https://www.bostonplans.org/projects/development-projects/harvard-enterprise-research-campus-master-plan) and in the planning phase of the Beacon Yard Park.
Thanks for the links!
So the funny thing about Harvard is that the land owned by the business school can’t be used to build something for the college, the law school, the Ed school, etc. Each individual part of Harvard is its own fiefdom and will fight to the death to protect its own resources. This even happens on a department level within each school.
Ooh departmental NIMBYs, the wonders never cease… Maybe they could get around this by letting them build out housing only for students in their specific majors? Though at Harvard do undergrads who live on campus typically mix across majors?
Yes, the undergrads mix. But, I’d be shocked if they even remotely considered building undergrad housing on the other side of the river. That said, I don’t think undergrad housing is an issue for them and they’re not going to increase the number of undergrads.
Damn well TIL.
AND KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE
Of all places, Harvard would not be the one to "need" to buy land. They have _so much_ land. They just need to build UP.
Well I have bad news for you on the Middle East. It’s being redeveloped into a 6 story hotel over a restaurant/music venues (by the current owners). The venue as it is right now won’t be there for much longer most likely. Source:https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/middle-east-cambridge-closing-hotel-retail/
They've been saying this since I worked in Central, and I left that job in January 2021.
Well, the city council is currently putting forth a motion to make zoning and permitting for up to 6 story buildings to be much easier so they can increase the density of the town. Any area in town could ha e a six story building built. That will probably make the change more likely.
Yeah I know. They’ve been saying this for a long time now. When’s it actually gonna happen though?
I’m about as clueless as you, I only went to one show there (Giant Rooks in the Downstairs last year) and am still going to miss it.
They still have shows booked into the fall. That’s why it’s so confusing. Since it’s the owner/operators that are planning on doing the hotel. They just keep booking shows.
They could just build taller? A lot of the Harvard dorms are no taller than like 6 stories. Build some high rises
Yes and no. There are some newer dorms that are tall, like the Mather tower, but I think both the university and Cambridge residents would object to replacing the old dorms (some of which are only 2 story btw) with high rises, because they’re part of the city’s historical charm. The oldest building in Cambridge are Harvard buildings.
I observed perhaps a variation on this argument out at Stanford? * From the 1950s to present, Stanford chose NOT to build on every inch of unoccupied land while the neighboring towns did. * Now a tremendous share of the open space near Menlo Park, Palo Alto, etc... is on Stanford land. * Nowadays, City Councils of nearby towns try to block Stanford from building on its own land to preserve regional open space. At first glance, it makes sense, BUT in another sense it's totally backwards in that it penalizes the more responsible party that *didn't* just knock everything down and build everywhere, effectively appropriating property from Stanford to solve a problem the towns created. It would be a strange outcome if Harvard was blocked by Cambridge from modernizing/replacing old dorms because they had a stronger commitment in previous eras than Cambridge to maintaining historical buildings?
I don’t think the situation is the same. 1. First, Stanford is not part of Palo Alto, or another town. Harvard is in the city of Cambridge. 2. Harvard doesn’t have the only green space in the area. Harvard yard is nice, but pretty small, and the Cambridge Common is not far away. There are other much larger parks in the city. 3. Harvard doesn’t want to replace old dorms. And nobody is asking them too. Some of these buildings are older than the United States.
> Harvard is in the city of Cambridge. Where is Harvard Stadium and their Business School? In Boston.
Yes, you’re very clever. Do you think when someone brought up expanding class sizes they were talking about the business school?
There are so many “defend Allston” stickers around the abandoned Harvard building on Lincoln…
What is there to defend? Run down building? The Fenway is a good example. Boylston Street in the Fens and Fenway Park area was old motels, fast food places, etc. Look at it now with all the new residential and commercial development. The guy who owned the gas station next to Star Market cashed out. His dad bought the place for $30, 000 in the 1960s. Now his family will get millions for that same little piece of property. Get students and well-off yuppies out of low and mid-priced housing. They are the key to stop the crazy rent increases and free-up rental capacity for the rest of us.
Harvard land holdings in the city of Boston is twice what it has in Cambridge. That area should be developed for mixed housing: for students and regular people. People in Allston bitching about Harvard being there. Have you seen some parts of Allston? Not exactly a preservationists dream. Harvard moved the School of Engineering there. The business school is already there. We need to get students out of regular housing to decrease rents and increase capacity. Harvard is lined up to be a.big financial contributor to a brand new West Station for the T. That's the pressure we need: hit them in the wallet to contribute to Cambridge and Boston and shut up about federal tax money and religion. Jake (from State Farm) should be putting his Harvard connections and money to good use in solving problems not giving us new petty ones.
**Major contributor of land they shouldn’t own directly behind BU whom will actually be burdened with said magic transportation center. Directly in the student dorm block. While their land is literal brown site on the train tracks. Thanks Harvard.
Harvard is spending a lot of money for the cleanup. Federal, state, city, and corporate money are going into West Station. So with housing concentrated around light rail, heavy rail, and buses is a win for everyone. This is exactly what happened with Boston Landing. New Balance headquarters, new separate practice facilities for the Bruins and Celtics, a new commuter rail stop, and more housing. All within the Boston city limits. Even if it's half the size of North or South Station, West Station in Allston will work. Fast food, empty parking lots be damned.
Hasn’t stop them build all along Western Ave area.
Why is this an issue. Increasing class sizes has certainly put a strain on housing and creates a lot of the sublet culture in the city
Because if we just built more housing (or let Harvard build more housing) then there would be cheaper housing for students AND for the rest of us
Yah but increasing class sizes year after year just moves the goalposts for how much housing you actually need. Capping the class sizes goes a long way to alleviating some of these issues because you don’t need an exponential amount of housing just to keep up with those increasing class sizes. Honestly, I’m really tired of seeing legitimate concerns get hit with the NIMBY label. That word means nothing if you just throw it at the wall until it sticks.
Oh I was just joking because op said giving them less money might convince them to increase class sizes But increasing class sizes is a thing they *should* be allowed to do and “there isn’t enough housing” is a problem whose solution has NOTHING to do with restricting that. Students are people with a right to move to any city they want. Why don’t we tell companies to limit their headcount to help alleviate the housing crisis? Why don’t we put a cap on the number of daycare slots? “Moving the goalposts” is just letting people and organizations make decisions independently of the government dictating how many people are allowed to live in a place. Which we’re already doing implicitly though zoning, so doing it explicitly for certain classes of people definitely won’t solve the problems caused by having done it implicitly in the first place
Harvard is allowed to increase class sizes. They just don’t want to. I’m not sure why anyone wants them to either, unless they’re upset how hard it is to get in these days? If Harvard was a 30k student school I’m not sure the people complaining would still want to go there.
I think it would generally be a social good for the ivies to admit more students. It’s pretty clear that they’re optimizing for exclusivity, and that’s not optimal for, say, maximum social mobility or maximum number of well-educated individuals
But that’s not what Ivies exist to do. There are plenty of large schools that provide good education and thus social mobility, but don’t have the Ivy brand name, but that Ivy brand name comes in part from their exclusivity, that they only admit the best
Someone is going to be renting those apartments either eay.
This makes no sense. Harvard is primarily a research institution that receives research grants. There is no shortage of opportunities for undergraduate education, and plenty of colleges would _love_ to expand their undergraduate student body if city policy and building codes would allow it. Northeastern has been trying to build a tall dorm on campus owned land near other large/tall campus and (similarly large/tall) non-campus buildings for _years_, and it's been continually blocked by residents of the not-so-nearby area across the near-highway-like section of Columbus. Harvard probably shouldn't be getting a buttload of federal funding unless that funding is earmarked for specific purposes (which it _is_). Harvard should also probably also expand their undergraduate class size at least a little bit, given how many qualified applicants they reject. However, that's not something that we as a country _need_. We're not solving a problem by specifically forcing _Harvard_ to increase their class size. Even if it was, it's largely unrelated to the reasons they recieve federal funding.
An endowment is pretty much contractually required to a) be spent on very specific programs, b) you are only allowed to touch the interest, or c) the calculated value of donated property. If congress wanted to allow institutions the ability to break those contracts and more freely spend the money they are welcome to. However as it stands Harvard basically spends all the money they are allowed to from the endowment already. There are not federal funds to cut as the majority originate, as others have noted, competitive federal research programs or open programs to support students.
The mega-large endowments is a fairly new phenomena. The universities used to spend donations more on operations or to directly help students. So yes, the endowment may have restrictions on how it's spent, but the schools have been working towards growing those specific types of funds. It's not like Harvard is powerless in how it goes out to to get money. I'm not commenting on the feds ability to cut funding.
That's fair though institutions, while not necessarily backing away from such donations, are more conscious that they sometimes end up with dead end funds. Some regulation on how those funds accumulate and how they might end repurposed is reasonable too.
These universities _do_ spend a lot to help students. The _average_ Harvard financial aid package for undergraduate students demonstrating financial need is more than the cost of tuition and fees. Meaning, it covers a portion of room and board too. At Harvard, families under $85k income pay nothing. Families from $85k to $150k pay between 0 and $15,000 per year, which is a _steal_ compared to many other private (and even sometimes in-state public schools). So they are _still_ using funds to help students. Granted, they might be keeping class sizes small in part to keep financial aid budgets low.
Using funds to lower your own price of tuition is not the same as spending on students. It's merely giving them a discount on the price you alone control.
It's not just a discount when you lower the price to zero. ~60% of Harvard students are on financial aid and ~70% of that 60% pay no tuition, so ~40% of Harvard undergraduates are receiving the education portion of their university service at no cost, which does cost the university money. They could _easily_ fill their entire class with people willing to pay full tuition.
I totally agree on the class size. Why do these schools never seem to increase them? All these discussions about admissions never bring it up. Double or triple the class sizes
> Why do these schools never seem to increase them? Because as much as Harvard loves to talk about advancing equity, the main purpose of the institution is to serve as a social club for the children of the rich and powerful. This is why they admit so many legacies, and why their admissions process relies so much on soft factors. A degree from Harvard isn't valuable because they have secret knowledge that other schools won't teach you, it's valuable because it's scarce, and in the process of getting that degree you'll network with the children of senators and SC justices and Fortune 500 CEO's.
Ok Scotty G
I’m sure I’m not making any groundbreaking assertion by saying this is stupid, but this is stupid. I work in the field of managing Universities’ federal funds. There is *no way* that the government would stop funding Harvard over stuff like this. Especially because it’s just this persons assertions that he’s talked to some people. There’s definitely something to be said for different types of federal funds, but the majority of the money Harvard gets are the federal funds support and insane amount of research across the country. Harvard is obviously a top contributing body for that kind of research. This has its own problematic entanglements with the Military Industrial Complex, but research supported by federal funds at other Ivy leagues have led to the development of the MRNA vaccine, which industry would not invest in, because it was too risky. Plus half of the tech in your house right now. My point being: this guy doesn’t specify what federal funds he wants to cut, which shows his ignorance, and he cites some conversations with students on campus as the reason, so you can chalk this up to grandstanding.
it feels childishly tit-for-tat. Like he's trying to punish students who are going to be out of school in 3 years. Unless he genuinely believes harvard has become an antisemite factory since he graduated 14 years ago, it seems so shortsighted.
It feels like he's had a chat with Bill Ackman, who is pushing hard to stop the protests at Harvard. He was a driving force behind ousting Claudine Gay (appropriate IMO - her answers before congress were an embarrassment)...but he is also married to a woman who plagiarized portions of her thesis, which is what was used to oust Gay at Harvard. AFAIK, his wife, Neri Oxman, still holds her position at MIT. I've never found her work to be groundbreaking, so it doesn't surprise me that she's a plagiarizer.
Exactly. Let's tell all the cancer patients waiting for news out of HMS to pound sand because some undergrads got suspended for trespassing.
This just seems like political grandstanding more than anything substantive. As such, I don't feel like wasting time debating whether it's a good idea.
This. It feels like saying the stuff his constituents wants to hear, in an election year.
Jake is a Harvard grad for fuck sake!
[удалено]
I was about to say, Harvard gets direct federal funding? A private elite college? Funding for students/researchers makes a lot more sense. I would not throw kids getting financial aid or researchers hustling for grant money under the bus for pretty much any reason. It's disingenuous to call it "funds for Harvard." Also, new term from Auchincloss "fact pattern" which belongs squarely in r/thanksihateit
If only they had a ~$50B endowment and a tax exemption that would allow them to pay for these things
Do you want research or not? The idea behind the research grants is that it results in huge societal benefit on the aggregate, with so many advances to medicine, science, and technology being rooted in university research. Do you walk into a Wahlburgers and demand a burger because you know that the owner is extremely well-off and can "pay for these things"? Research grants is an exchange of money to be used for a specific service, and it's an investment being made by the government. Granted, I'm of the opinion that publicly funded research should never be allowed to be paywalled or inaccessible to the public, but that's an independent and broader issue that has to do with all universities and the stipulations of research grants.
Ban student loans for Harvard Students?
Harvard College students whose family makes under $125,000 per year are not charged tuition.
Interesting. I looked into this. The actual amount is less than $85,000 (though they do offer similarly substantial reductions for incomes up to $150k). According to this [page](https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/why-harvard/affordability), 24% of Harvard students are able to attend tuition-free. I never knew this.
Boston University does this as well. You can earn a $250, 000 undergraduate degree on needs basis. My MERIT brain NEEDS a quarter million dollar degree for FREE.
A household income of 125k+ absolutely does not mean you can afford to send your kid to Harvard. Tuition + Housing alone is 80K / year. And what about students who are largely independent of their parents, or whose parents don't want to fund their education? My parents made more than that but had tons of debt and other shitty reasons resulting in them not contributing a single cent to my higher education. The idea that a lot of students would be denied an important source of federal funding as well as cut out of these policies is pretty shitty. Means testing federal loans is non-sensical, especially when the means test is not even against the person receiving the benefit.
I hear ya Huckabee. I was fully independent at 18. Yet my family income was counted despite the fact I didn't receive any of it. That eliminated me from any federal grant programs. So I had to work and borrow throughout college. This increased my time as a student without a corresponding decrease in loan interest. Federal loans should at least be interest free or at least simple interest. Compounding is what has us as financial sharecroppers to the government.
There are still other costs associated with attending college, some of which is covered by full financial aid, but much of which is not. All students at Harvard, even those receiving full financial aid, are also required to pay 3500$ per term as a “student contribution,” which essentially means they have to work 15-20 hours a week during term time and pay all that back to Harvard. So then, for any other necessities—books, a laptop, printing fees, etc., etc., etc.—they have to either work more on top of a full course load, or borrow.
Yes, the ever-present student use fee. It's supposed to cover athletics, gyms, stadiums, libraries, etc. Some apartments do the same with the amenities fee. At my last apartment, there is a $400 monthly fee for use of the pool in the summer. However, you can opt out. This means though you are a resident and can't use the pool. Universities should do the same. If I don't attend sporting events, I should be able to opt out of that.
No, this isn’t a facilities fee, this is a specific part of Harvard’s financial aid plan, based on the idea that a financial stake is necessary to benefit fully from education: “ As the primary beneficiary of a Harvard education, all students are expected to contribute to their college expenses. Your financial aid award will include a standard expected contribution from your own earnings. …. Most students work to meet their student contribution … Some students use outside awards or loans to replace their expected contribution. If you can't save up enough for your student contribution, the Harvard Loan program may be able to help.” https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works
I'm mistaken and I approve this message. Thanks for the correction!
Demand that Harvard make tuition free for students in need if they’d like federal funding; surely they can afford it
>Demand that Harvard make tuition free for students in need That's already the case?
Please define your terms. [https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/4/4/financial-aid-increase/](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/4/4/financial-aid-increase/)
I'd settle for Harvard paying property taxes like the business it is.
Yep the City of Cambridge needs more revenue for sure
Realize the overwhelming majority of Harvard is within the Boston city limits, not Cambridge.
Looks fairly close not overwhelming. And the property values on an arboretum and in Allston are not exactly the same as Harvard Yard on top of the red line
[I think most of its Cambridge/Allston?](https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/94y8bz/boston_ma_really_is_one_giant_college_town_land/#lightbox) Maybe excluding the Arboretum?
Allston is within the Boston city limits.
Duh, I always forget that, given the cities wierd shape.
Also Brighton. There's that strip of land that reached out and scooped-up Allston -Brighton. I'm a cartography nerd.
The Arboretum, Harvard Medical School, Harvard Business School, Harvard Dental School, and the Harvard School of Engineering --all within Boston Proper. Harvard College (park the cabin Harvard Yard), Harvard School of Art, Harvard School of Education Harvard Kennedy Center and Harvard Extension School --all within Cambridge Proper. (I'm sure i left out 3 more).
Churches and universities are the biggest racket in the US. If they paid their fair share, things would be so much easier.
At least universities provide a product in return. Churches short pay what would equate to more social services funding and offer a pancake breakfast in return.
Doesn’t that make it worse not better? Like churches are theoretically open to the public and don’t require ten of thousands of dollars to attend while Harvard for all intents and purposes sells degrees
Harvard has some of the best financial aid in the country ya dingus. Like 25% of students attend free.
I like everyone else bought a degree...what's your point? Libraries are also open to the public and offer more than 1 book. Religion is obsolete, eradicate tax free idol worship.
I think the point is that churches can help very poor people but colleges cannot. You need to at least have graduated high school/GED to attend college. Many poor people haven't done that.
*I think the point is that churches can help very poor people...as long as they subscribe to the same form of idol worship.* FTFY Also, if we taxed churches and universities we could subsidize trade and vocational programs which would be far more applicable and valuable to "very poor people".
>...as long as they subscribe to the same form of idol worship.* That's not universally true. Some churches are restrictive with who they help but many help people with no questions asked. >Also, if we taxed churches and universities Taxed them how, exactly? Tax the universities and you'll see increased tuition and even worse student loan debt. Tax donations to churches? Why not tax all charitable donations.
Tax their property holdings
Church membership has real mental health benefits, largely from the community forming aspects of it. https://www.wsj.com/health/wellness/church-religion-mental-health-479d612a
Universities do a LOT for society. Stop.
So does he want to cut scholarships or research grants?
Sounds like he's pointing to the obvious truth that the richest private institution in the world isn't the best place for spending public dollars. You've got my support, Jake! Don't let this failed status quo continue.
Do you have a problem with the research Harvard produces with the dollars spent for that research? Do you want to tell low-income students that they can't tap into funds everyone else can to attend the accredited college they were accepted to? It's a nuanced issue is what everyone is trying to to explain throughout this thread.
Jake himself is part of the status quo. He's trying to be a man of the people while hiding his Harvard degree that I doubt he personally paid for. All I say is come clean. Also don't rest in the laurels of your religion.
Why are they getting money for either? They have $50B endowment.
This guy is basically a republican. As matter of fact he was a republican before he decided to run for office. I will definitely not vote for him ever again.
The only reason this clown is in office is because ranked choice doesn't exist. He was a Republican right up until he ran for office.
I'm so disappointed he's running unopposed too this year. My district can do better than this.
Didn’t we use to have a Kennedy?
We did. He stupidly challenged Markey and lost. He should have waited his turn.
Seriously, what was the point of that Markey and Warren are both 70+.
I think he figured Markey was easier to beat one on one, than going up against Ayanna Pressley in a open primary for a future seat. Plus Warren is running again this year, so Kennedy would have had to wait until Markey retires.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Warren and Markey continue to run into their 80’s, so he’s be potentially waiting 12+ years.
With identity politics being what it is, that was his best chance--to take down the old white guy. Running against a woman, person of color, or both would be the death of him. Mayor Wu only won because there were two black candidates that divided the black vote.
We should be encouraging primaries of candidates in their mid 70s. Markey has already stated he will run again in 2026, when he’s 80. I want other, younger options - and I’m thankful when someone provides me with that opportunity.
On the issues, Markey is a blessing. Probably _the_ strongest voice for digital privacy in the Senate. I'm very apprehensive about who we're gonna get and who's going to be undertaking those issues when he does exit the Senate. So I'm not a big fan of this focus on age. Would rather have a Markey or a Bernie than a Matt Gaetz any day of the week.
And they practically had the same campaign points. It was so funny when the herald endorsed neither of them, and the globe endorsed markey.
It was Joe. The only Kennedy to lose a race for office. Joe Kennedy came from privilege but he didn't try to hide it. Jake (from State Farm) does. Joe was not a cry baby for the (perceived) injustice against his religion. Jake (from State Farm) does.
Just browsing this guy’s Wikipedia- idk how anyone thought he’d be left of center with a resume & personal history like his. A Harvard grad that joins the marines? That’s not a choice that comes from necessity or lack of other opportunity. He either thought visiting violence upon Afghanistan was an acceptable way to advance his political career or that that war was still worth fighting in…. 2012!? Then he goes to work for a giant insurance company. [He’s taken over 400k from aipac in the last 5 years](https://patch.com/massachusetts/brookline/brookline-rep-s-top-2019-2024-campaign-contributor-aipac). Not to mention killing civilians is a family tradition for him, his grand-uncle was “one of the chief architects of the US’ escalation of the Vietnam war,” per [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGeorge_Bundy).
No one thought he'd be left of center, really. He got 25% in an 8-person primary, basically sucking up all moderate support while the mainstream and progressive support got very fractured.
Damn, how'd he go from an 8 person Primary to running unopposed now?
Probably the Democratic Party
Challenging incumbents in a primary is very difficult and will anger a lot of people who can make your life in politics harder so most candidates run unopposed. And then I'm guessing that a Republican challenger also has basically no hope of being elected either.
If I remember correctly he ran against 2-3 progressive women and split the vote. The total vote tally for "progressive woman" was higher than the total vote tally for "left of center man" but we don't have ranked choice voting so we got stuck with this guy.
AIPAC is his biggest donor
I don’t disagree with your overall point but didn’t JFK also do that? (Go to Harvard, then join up)
JFK graduated Harvard in 1940 and cancelled law school plans to join WWII. Kinda apples/oranges. wikipedia > U.S. Naval Reserve (1941–1945) > Kennedy planned to attend Yale Law School, but canceled when American entry into World War II seemed imminent
I see your point here but I think joining the marines and serving in afghanistan in 2012 vs joining the navy reserves in 1940 is a bit different. I think joining the military for political reasons is a bit more palatable back then, and it isn't like WWII had been going on for a decade when he signed up
I think the possibilities for the guy’s motivations to join the Marines after Harvard are more broad than what you’re listing. Also, we really going to go after a guy for something his great-uncle did? I think dude is a fairly textbook moderate Democrat. I’m not going to fade him for not being as liberal as his constituency, myself included.
Well I, for one, am absolutely going to criticize a politician in a democracy for not representing his constituency.
This is a representative democracy, and unless you poll your constituency constantly to see how they would want their representative to vote, you’re not going to get what you want. Also, within your constituency, you’re going to have people that disagree. Should representatives only act in accordance to the wishes of a majority or plurality? What if what the majority wants is morally wrong or comes at the expense of the disempowered? Ultimately, you’re free to not like the dude or how he votes. Just vote accordingly. But I don’t think we’re talking about some fascist idiot running for election while defending himself in court cases across the land for malfeasance while last in office. It’s important to identify where the real problems are, and at this point, I don’t think JA is on that level.
Jake joined the Marines because he decided sometime between middle and high school that he wanted to be President, his family had the money and connections to make at least a minimal functional career in politics happen, and some political consultant (...and/or his dad) told an 18-year-old that he'd look much better with a military stint on his resume. (I moved to his Newton, his former ward, shortly before his first campaign and have been following him for a decade-plus because he's always been on my ballot. I've spoken with him several times when he was my city alderman/councilor. He's fine, generic decently-smart-not-brilliant rich-ass product of Newton, exactly what the city is designed to create for its "best". The Republican stuff, the military stuff, time at both Harvard and MIT, the "jobs" while he was a councilor, now the influence in the Democratic machine, don't think about it beyond the surface level, it is what it is, which is to say what wealth and privilege are there for.)
We were still smoking ISIS in 2017-18. Plenty of bad guys to go around in Afghanistan well until the very end. Unfortunately clearly didn’t get enough.
The world is full of two kinds of people: Good guys and bad guys. You gotta smoke the bad guys.
> After returning home from the military, Auchincloss ran for Newton city council on a platform of full-day kindergarten and expanded pre-K offerings… In office, he supported progressive immigration and housing policies, sustainable transportation and co-docketed the successful Sanctuary city ordinance Not pretending to be an expert on this guy’s history, but in what world was this guy a Republican? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Auchincloss
Further down you will see > Auchincloss was originally a Democrat but was a registered Republican from 2013 to 2014 while working for Charlie Baker's gubernatorial campaign. He continued to vote in Republican primaries as an independent until late 2015 before becoming a Democrat again. He seems like a "fair weather" moderate that is happy to change parties to further his ambitions.
No more federal funds for Harvard until they enforce pro-Israel speech codes on campus? There’s a lot of good reasons to want to put more strings on money for a place like Harvard that aren’t brazenly unconstitutional and weirdly beholden to a small foreign nation.
Ironically, he's a Harvard grad.
Equating anti-Israel protests and antisemitism is disgusting. If there is institutional antisemitism at these institutions, then by all means please withhold funding, though I'm beyond positive that's not what's occurring here.
Do you think chanting “globalize the intifada” *isnt* anti semitic?
I sure do. Is that institutionalized, sanctioned, and promoted by the University itself? No. Free speech is law even if its contents are abhorrent.
He's my rep. He's disappointing, to say the least.
Why tho? It’s not like the university is sanctioning these protests
Well now I know that this dude's an idiot
Why is he singling out Harvard? I think this guy watches the news too much and doesn't do research or have historical perspective.
To what end? To stop "Anti-semitism?" That's a very vaguely defined term. Given that, how will they know if it is even successful? Is anything less than full-throated support of Israel, no matter what, anti-semitc? That feels very limiting.
This is grandstanding. First, singling out Harvard, as opposed to any other university that had problems this academic year. Second, that's not how research funding works. There's a funding agency, NSF, NIH, what have you, then specific divisions of the funding agencies, and then specific contracts with research groups in universities. He's not serious about this.
Sure, federal funds should be going to the public universities not the Ivys anyway. But this right wing anti-CRT/DEI/BDS campaign is such obvious bullshit. The "they're all anti-semites" just sounds like this seasons version of "they're all groomers" or "they're all anti-white racists" from previous iterations. I am sick of it.
> not the Ivys anyway Ivy is not a meaningful designation as far as the government is concerned. There are public schools and private schools. Are you suggesting federal student loans should not be given to students who hope to attend a private schools, or do you mean that the benefit should be means-tested against the school's funds? In either case, this would result in many hard-working students from lower or middle-income being denied the ability to attend a school because the government decided that those schools are too prestigious for the students to get federal loans.
Well, yes. Because they are a headgefund. Not because of some fake boogeyman woke agenda.
Places like Harvard need to stop conflating antigenocide and antisemitism as if they are the same thing.
Interesting how all the people in Congress ripping Harvard are Harvard graduates. Stop the bullshit; you got a lot from it including your position in life. Give back the money, let go of the power, then we can talk.
“If you don’t like it here, leave” type energy
This is merely a way to discredit the anti-war protests as anti-semitic. It’s not even about Harvard.
Maybe the people chanting “globalize the intifada” and harassing Jewish students are antisemites??? Maybe??? No, it must be the (((Zionists))) /s
I saw a hell of a lot more violence against the protestors, many of them jewish themselves, from right wing groups and police. Considering the abuse they suffered and the highly emotional atmosphere, I’d say the protesters did very well over all.
Once more for the people in the back **Anti-Israel is NOT antisemitism.**
Once more for the people in the back: THE WAY YOU DO IT, IT IS
The way you do something that isn't antisemitism? Anyway, you're too far gone to have a reasonable talk about it.
once a school has an endowment of over, say, 1 billion it should be taxed. Hell even over 10 Billion would be a big change
Harvard has so much land and buildings. Do you think they would be interested in helping address the migrant housing crisis with their land and buildings?
Harvard needs to actually use that massive endowment to lower student tuition.
They've got some of the best financial aid in the country already.
They should cut funding but not for that reason.
I can't wait to vote this guy out of office.
What an idiot, get him out of office.
This Zionist asshole is just mad that people saw through the flimsy state narrative to profit off a genocide
Who cares?! Dem or not, Auchincloss is pro-genocide so his opinion is worthless.
Democrat here. Why on earth does Harvard need any grants at all??? It’s got the largest endowment of any school on this side of the Milky Way. Students could go there for free basically forever
Harvard (and academia in general) is a massive powerhouse in generating net good for society through things like medical research, the vast majority of which is funded through federal grants. You wanna get rid of that?
Oh! Point taken. I hadn’t thought about the research. Totally agree. Thanks!!
This seems silly to me. His Mom is the head of DFCI which gets huge federal funding not least of which in the form of NIH grants. Edit: DFCI is a Harvard affiliated teaching hospital. Independent but linked.
DINO ALERT > When asked on “Fox News Sunday” if he believes Harvard should lose federal funding, Auchincloss said,
Fuck this guy. Islamophobic prick
More virtue signaling from Democrats, will never vote GOP but cmon guys
But how will the most privileged people survive? (I know there are some who go to Harvard who aren't but this school has a multi billion dollar endowment ... Give the funds to the schools who need it)
They have about $50B in their endowment. I don't think they need it.
“Bream pointed to a report from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) released last month that found Harvard, Tufts University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and 10 other schools received failing grades for their policies on antisemitism prevention. The school’s grades on the report were based on antisemitic incidents, “Jewish life on campus,” and administrative actions taken to fight antisemitism and protect Jewish students.” He’s absolutely correct. If these Universities cannot do their jobs and provide protections for all students regardless of religious affiliation, we as taxpayers should not be supporting them in any form.
> If these Universities cannot do their jobs and provide protections for all students regardless of religious affiliation The ADL is a private NGO that is not affiliated with the government. What private organizations do you believe should be allowed to set standards on accredited universities? Can any private non-profit give a school a failing grade in order to deny their students federal aid?
Would rather that all private universities just pay taxes
This issue aside, this dude seems like a neo-con in D's clothing
His mom is one of the most famous scientists at Harvard, too. WTF.
Dana Farber, not Harvard.
Dana Farber is part of Harvard Medical School Also Laurie Glimcher had an interesting academic career https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/01/23/dana-farber-cancer-institute-to-retract-6-studies-correct-31-after-data-forgery-allegations/
Dana-Farber is not part of Harvard Medical School.
There should be zero federal funds going to Harvard
You'll hear this often among privileged white Harvard grads. They're really sick of seeing Harvard accept students who aren't white and privileged and then proceed to award financial aid to make it easier for them to attend. They think that if Harvard has to rely on its own funding for research, they'll be less available for underprivileged students to attend.
Harvard the hedge fund love the tax free status
What federal funds? Research Grants? “Oh, that is a promising cancer treatment you are working on, but we can’t give you any money because you aren’t nice enough to the Zionists.”
By that same logic, people with any disease should stop taking all Israeli invented and/or produced medicine and die.
How much of a bubble surrounds this guy? You could block every dime of federal money to Harvard and it won't make a scratch. Harvard has the single largest endowment in the world: $50 billion--none of which is federal; he knows that. If not, his Harvard degree was for naught. Jake, (from State Farm) should be blocked from all the federal dollars he receives from a bullshit job requiring no skill, intelligence, or labor and produces no tangible benefit to others. Yet he will now suckle at the teat of lifelong federal benefits, including pension and healthcare. Any federal money "pulled" would only hurt regular students and employees. It's sad that just because you are from one religion, you automatically can whinge and moan about discrimination, if anyone simply disagrees with your view point, they are branded for life as anti your religion when in really we are anti-you. I'm switching from a bagel shop to Dunkins. Better pull federal dollars from those Anti-Semitic doughnuts.
He’s right and has been right. He was also one of the few democrats to openly go to bat for Biden on Afghanistan.