Cut off Harvard to save America

Tags: Opinion

Why allow schools that show legacy admission preferences the right to claim special tax privileges?

Cut off Harvard to save America
BIASED BASIS: A student graduating from Yale or Princeton, with their roughly $2 million endowments per student, has a ticket to a well-paying job, while one graduating from the College of St Joseph in Vermont, with its $29,000 endowment per student, does not
In the US, college endowments totalled $448.6 billion in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, an increase of 11.7 per cent compared with a year earlier, according to recently released data.

As we know, this wealth is concentrated among a privileged few. Harvard, Yale and Princeton universities all have almost $2 million in endowment funds for every student.

We’ve heard the argument that what these institutions do with their privately raised money is their business and that they provide a lot of financial aid opportunities for less affluent students. But these endowments are of dubious value and can be attacked on two grounds. First, they promote inefficiency through misallocation of resources. Second, they are anti-meritocratic.

Regarding inefficiency, Adam Smith got it right more than 200 years ago in The Wealth of Nations. College endowments, he said, “have necessarily diminished more or less the necessity of application in the teachers.” At the University of Oxford, he complained, “public professors have, for these many years, given up altogether even the pretence of teaching.”

This sounds similar to situations at some universities today. Before endowments were large, professors sometimes had to earn their salaries by collecting tuition fees from students. When endowments provided professors a guaranteed salary, the incentive of offering high-quality instruction to paying students largely disappeared.

The negative consequences of endowments as well as other third-party subsidies (state appropriations, alumni donations, foundation grants) are huge. Faculty can neglect students to do obscure research that no one uses or reads. Endowments have also enabled university administrative bureaucracies to explode.

Compare private universities, which rely heavily on endowments, with public universities, which rely much less on them. Adjusting for enrollments, administrative staffs have grown more robustly at the highly endowed private schools.

Using National Centre for Education Statistics data, in 2011 there were 11.56 administrative and non-instructional professional staff for every 100 students in the relatively highly endowed private universities, compared with 7.44 at the much less heavily endowed public institutions.

A private school with 10,000 students typically had about 400 more bureaucrats than a public institution of equal size. If those extra bureaucrats made on average $75,000, counting fringe benefits, they added $3,000 per student to total annual educational costs.

The eight Ivy League schools have less than 1 per cent of US college students but almost 17 per cent of all endowment money. The top 3 per cent of schools ranked by endowment size have more than half the funds. Five schools (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford University and one public institution, the University of Texas) had endowment increases last year of more than $1 billion, exceeding the total endowment of more than 90 per cent of the schools (including virtually all the larger ones) publicly disclosing information. Do rich schools use their wealth to promote upward economic mobility by disproportionately accepting low-income students? No — just the opposite. I took the 10 highest-endowed schools and looked at the percentage of students receiving Pell Grants, then compared that with the 10 lowest-endowed schools in a survey by the National Association of College and University Business Officers.

Most Pell Grant students come from below-average-income households. In the highly endowed schools, a median of 16 per cent of students received Pells, compared with 59 per cent at the lowest-endowed institutions.

A student graduating from Yale or Princeton, with their roughly $2 million endowments per student, has a ticket to a well-paying job, while one graduating from the College of St Joseph in Vermont, with its $29,000 endowment per student, does not. Only 12 per cent of the Yale and Princeton students have Pells, compared with 71 per cent at St Joseph.

The federal government subsidises this academic aristocracy (made more exclusive by elite highly endowed schools giving admission preferences for children of alumni) in several ways. Big endowments such as Harvard’s probably often reap at least $1 billion annually from capital gains. They pay no income taxes on those gains; individuals pay 23.8 per cent. They also pay no income taxes on dividend and interest income. The donations that form the endowments are deductible against donor income taxes, giving rich people the incentive to give to their already rich colleges, which in turn give preferences to alumni children.

I am no liberal and I’m not preoccupied with the consequences of income inequality. But I can’t figure out why the liberal elite that purports to care about inequality isn’t asking these questions: Why do we provide favourable tax treatment that primarily benefits these wealthy schools? Why not at least phase out tax preferences to donors and to schools with more than, say, a $200,000 endowment per student? Why allow schools that show legacy admission preferences the right to claim special tax privileges?

Maybe many of these liberal leaders went to one of these highly endowed schools — and want their children and grandchildren to have the same opportunity.

—Bloomberg

(Richard Vedder, an economist, directs the Centre for College Affordability and Productivity and teaches at Ohio University. He is an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute)


Post new comment

E-mail ID will not be published
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

EDITORIAL OF THE DAY

  • The economic survey falls in step with the BJP’s election manifesto

    It’s always tough to find something wrong with the annual economic survey as it only articulates the government’s desire to set its house in order

FC NEWSLETTER

Stay informed on our latest news!

INTERVIEWS

GV Nageswara Rao

MD & CEO, IDBI Federal Life

Timothy Moe

Goldman Sachs

Chander Mohan Sethi

CMD, Reckitt Benckiser India

COLUMNIST

Arun Nigavekar

Why higher education needs innovation

India is such a great country that it creates complexity ...

Zehra Naqvi

We must overcome the fear of death

It is the biggest irony that the only thing that’s ...

Dharmendra Khandal

Jawai leopards and locals can coexist peacefully

At first glance, the Jawai landscape seems like a large ...

INTERVIEWS

William D. Green

Chairman & CEO, Accenture