Hacker News Reader

To be fair, this article is by a Harvard student, in a Harvard paper. It's very much relevant in that context.

But fair to ask why everyone on HN (including the two of us...) are reading and talking about it.

Because it's emblematic of an issue (or reality, if you prefer) that is happening at many universities.

Perhaps, but co-mingling a perceived problem at Harvard (high nameplate tuition that few students actually pay) with an actual problem at public universities (disinvestment in higher education by state legislatures causing tuition increases) doesn't help the debate at all, it just muddies the waters.

Even this article doesn't actually address the issue directly; it complains about excessive administrators, then tries to support that complaint with tuition data. Tuition is not the primary funding source of university administrators. Federal research dollars pay for a significant fraction (if not a majority) of them. The data that the author should be leveraging is expenditure data, not income data.

This is the best aggregate dataset I have on university expenditures, showing a modest increase in spending on a per-student basis: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_334.10.a...

But it's not - because, as is pointed out elsewhere, the amount that Harvard chooses to spend on its administration doesn't have much impact on how much it costs most students to attend, nor does it appear to compete out faculty or other funding.

To that extent, Harvard is precisely non-emblematic of the issue.

Why has college cost far outpaced inflation for the past 40 years?

It’s now at the point where people want debt forgiveness.

Something is definitely wrong. And this isn’t the first time administrative costs has come up.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/administrative-bloat-i...

The bloat of administration positions in endemic at the Ivy’s as well as state run institutions. That’s the connection as I see it.

Because one of the Prime Truths of HackerNews is "why does X have so many people? They could easily do it with Y instead".

Yes I don't have a problem with the article itself, but more with everyone here sitting and debating it like they have any skin in the game. Harvard is a century+ older than the USA and has a larger endowment than the reserves of most countries. They will be just fine. Spend that energy towards your local public school instead and you may see some actual positive change.

Because Harvard gets not-for-profit status and the associated tax breaks, despite having a $51B endowment that keeps growing. I think it's fair game to ask what our public policy should be for providing tax breaks to schools that horde huge amounts of money. On the other hand, if they didn't get tax breaks, then I'd agree with you that's it is none of the public's business.

This is the important point. Anyone paying taxes in the US is subsidizing Harvard.

It also receives over $0.5bn per year in federal research grants.

Each university has a base rate that is tacked on to each grant (F&A) and Harvard has one of the highest overhead rates allowed. This means, relative to other research institutions, every research dollar spent at Harvard has more money "taxed" away for administration. What is the opposite for economies of scale?

Harvard produces a big chunk of the elite that run other American and global institutions, and less prestigious universities often follow their lead. The culture there and the students that absorb it has disproportionate impact on the world.

Having spent an extended time in the academic milieu in Cambridge, MA, another concern of mine is the extended use of stimulants. For personal choice, I don't much care, but in the context of those making the laws, I observed a definite tendency of students and researchers to expect Joe Random American to be able to output work at the same capacity as hopped-up administrators to be. And the end effect is observable: a meth epidemic among the disenfranchised. Is it any wonder a class of vulnerable people is created who have to take drugs to work the crappiest jobs because large equity and gaps in access to capital prevent them from ever owning a home? Curb stimulant use in the Ivy Leagues.

I think the focus is because as a leading institution, Harvard (and the rest of the Ivies) set the trend for how the rest of academia will organize themselves.

If Harvard hired a vice-Provost of Higher Student Satisfactionality, well then surely Directional State U must have one too! So bloat in the private schools leads to bloat in the public as they try to keep up, with, as you mention, diminishing funding.

Same logic applies to business - everyone in Silicon Valley was copying Steve Jobs' best and worst characteristics after the iPhone.

You're argument on the state school is also spot on

> Your hard working kid isn't entitled to Harvard

Just remember that about 45% of Harvard’s undergrads got to cut in line ahead of your hardworking kid because they were athletes, legacy admits, children of people the deans thought might kick in a few million, or children of Harvard faculty.

It is our concern because Harvard is subsidized by our tax money, in the form of explicit research and teaching grant, student loans, and charity tax status. It is every American’s right to ask if that money might not be spent more effectively elsewhere.

> why football and basketball coaches are the highest paid public employees in the state

Because they're worth it. Many programs just straight up are profitable, but all of them contribute positively to the bottom line. Sports are the main way universites solicit donations from alumni. They make a university more popular to students by building school spirit. Football and basketball programs bring immeasurable benefits to universities.

University budgets are insanely complicated. I could make a case that the philosophy department is profitable given the minor grant sums it takes in if I ignore all other costs. The sports teams can easily hide the administrative/marketing costs of the program.

Yet they still have a tax free status so the public does have an interest.

They take in students who use taxpayer funding to pay some of their tuition, they get large grants for research from the taxpayers, and they have a massive endowment that they're able to invest tax-free while hardworking people are busy paying taxes on our investments. Wha they do is absolutely a legit concern for us taxpayers.

Is this really a problem? People are obsessed with Harvard and not seeing the problem as general? Because I've seen these complaints come up tons of times without Harvard.

>Yes it is one of the top educational institutions in the country, but it is also private.

If they're so private and immune from public feedback, why are they tasked with producing such an overwhelming portion of our political and judicial class, up to Supreme Court justices?

>tasked

... such a strange choice of words in this context. It's not like the U.S. Government is sitting there, waiting for Harvard to fill its quota of Supreme Court Justices.