NOT ONLY does the Ivy League damage young and impressionable minds, it costs ordinary taxpayers a bundle. From 2010 to 2015 alone, it reportedly received $120,000 per undergraduate student in government subsidies.

— Comments —

Dan R. writes:

Or as the link is titled, “how America’s most prestigious universities bilk the U.S. taxpayer.”

Where to begin? First, by acknowledging that I have a son who will be graduating from an Ivy League university in a couple of months. He has had a very rewarding experience, though he is clearly less conservative now than when he entered. Though I have been disappointed watching that aspect of the process unfold over the four years, I’ve always respected my son for his independence of mind. Plus, whatever the loss, there has been much to balance it out, and then some.

The Ivy League has long been an obvious target for those interested in playing the class envy card. The cost of tuition at Ivy League colleges is often emphasized, even though there are many other private colleges that charge similar prices. Even some of the more prestigious state universities, such as the University of Michigan, charge their out-of-state students an amount for tuition that is very close to Ivy League tuition ($41K for UM versus $47K for Harvard). Moreover, the college my son has attended has a need-based financial aid program and as a result he is graduating debt-free.

Looking at the items at the Zero Hedge site that you link to, “welfare” is sometimes a term used to describe the types of payments listed, but I don’t believe that is fair. “Welfare” is given based purely on need. Grants, which comprise the largest category at $23.9 billion, are not given as freebies. There is something expected in return, and applicants must go through an involved application process. That many of these grants are trivial is not something I’d contest, but I also believe some of them are tied to useful and important work, particularly in the sciences. In any case, universities throughout the country vie for these grants. Should it come as any surprise that the Ivy League colleges, with a long history of excellence–unfortunately, somewhat marred over the past few decades of political correctness–should be among the most successful in attracting grant money? To focus on the Ivy League strikes me as a case of sour grapes. They are winners in a competitive process which few colleges or universities abstain from.

Contracts is another item listed. At $1.37 billion it is relatively small, but the difference between this and grants is that something very tangible is expected in return. Otherwise, the same points I made with regard to Grants, apply.

Then we have $460 million in student assistance, by which I assume is meant programs like Pell Grants. This is something that all but literally a handful of colleges participate in, and for better or worse is a significant source of funding for college students. Whatever criticisms one may have, the Ivy League is no different from everyone else here.

The $9.6 billion worth of tax breaks for endowments is also something all colleges take advantage of. They are specifically for non-profit institutions, and are at worst an indirect subsidy, an amount forgiven in taxes. The Ivy League, consisting of some of the oldest and most prestigious of universities, not surprisingly has among the largest endowments.

Of the total “welfare” figure of $41.59 billion, $6.2 billion is unaccounted for at the Zero Hedge site, but I think they’ve made it evident that they are more interested in playing the class envy card than giving a balanced view of the monies spent. I suspect the remaining $6.2 billion would subject to similar criticisms as the other categories.

As I’ve said, this is the system that’s been in existence for many decades. I wish it was different, but that has been the reality for a long time. “Welfare” is a politically-charged and inaccurate way to describe it. The Zero Hedge analysis, in its appeal to class envy, is not much better than click-bait. A serious discussion of this system is, I believe, warranted, but it must do better than what Zero Hedge has offered.

Laura writes:

“Welfare” is not an accurate term for all of these payments. But I don’t regard it as class envy so much as the belief that the Ivy League is promoting destructive ideologies that lies behind Zero Hedge’s critique. I’m surprised you would not see that. Nor is it necessarily “sour grapes” to focus on our most well-endowed educational institutions, which have been built up over many generations with the contributions of many, rich and poor. They have all the more responsibility to turn out capable leaders.

As for grants, many go to sciences, including political projects such as global warming, but many also go to the humanities, much of which is politically subversive in nature, waging war against the most basic truths about human existence and national stability. These institutions disproportionately hog the resources for intellectual development. So many grants, so little wisdom. That’s the way it is and it isn’t going to change soon, but that does not make it good.

I personally plead guilty to resentment of the Ivy League, deep resentment for its part in the destruction of the family, our economic system, love of God, racial pride and just ordinary common sense. The Ivy League promotes mind-blowing immaturity in its students who then go on to spread this poison — which may be minimally harmful in a material sense to someone like your capable son who may see through it all in the end but which is catastrophic to the lower, uneducated classes. This shocking lack of noblesse oblige especially pertains to sexual morality, religion, national unity, race and economics — well, basically everything important except technology. I am not happy about the huge amount these wealthy institutions, with gargantuan endowments that exceed the entire budgets of many small countries, receive from the federal government in tax breaks and grants to promote various cultural neuroses. Is that “sour grapes?” Is it “class envy?” Mea culpa. Let them use up their endowments instead.

Dan R. writes:

I don’t read enough of Zero Hedge to say with certainty what their motivation was to focus upon the Ivy League, but when you consider that all the complaints you’ve made apply equally as much to many other universities in the United States, I have to wonder. Your point about the “responsibility to turn out capable leaders” is something I agree with. Oddly, I suspect the Ivy League schools agree with this too, but their definition is now different from from what it once was, reflecting the values of the cultural revolution that has swept through academia.

And what of this cultural revolution? Was it spearheaded by the Ivy League? If we date the beginnings from Berkeley’s “free speech movement” of 1964 and the Columbia student occupation of 1968, what I recall was activity on a wide variety of campuses. Among the Ivy League schools, Harvard, Columbia, and Cornell were the most prominent examples of this student radicalism, but in each case the administration rejected the radicals’ demands at first, and then were later dragged into it. In the meantime there was intense activity at the much larger and more numerous state universities, such as Wisconsin and Michigan, and a slew of others inspired by this. I don’t believe the Ivy League was in the vanguard of these changes, but as a group of institutions most prominently viewed as the “establishment,” they were open targets for all manner of things.

A healthy endowment is essential to the existence of private, non-profit institutions. In nearly every state, these endowments are legally shielded from taxes they would otherwise pay were they profit-making institutions (and this goes beyond academia, hospitals being another example). For over 200 years the Ivy League served the model you suggest. They still maintain much of their rich heritage, foremost being excellence in scholarship. Rather than agitate for what effectively would be their destruction, let’s instead work for the day when they are recaptured and transition back to their original values, a goal no less plausible than changing the social policies that form the basis for this blog.

Laura writes:

The endowment of Harvard is $37 billion and that of Yale is $25 billion.

The idea that these schools promote “excellence in scholarship” in fields such as philosophy, history and literature — which are far more important than biology or chemistry — is plain and simply laughable. Many of the most important historical events and ideas are either ignored or barely discussed at these bastions of soulless careerism and political radicalism.

But that is a case I will have to prove at another time.

Please follow and like us: