Harvard (and other private colleges) enjoy a tax exempt status where it comes to endowment growth, and private colleges are recipients of massive amounts of government research funds. Harvard enrolls a tiny undergraduate class, with an even tinier percentage of low income students (UC Berkeley enrolls more low income students than the entire ivy league combined). Interestingly, numbers of grad students are roughly the same at the two institutions.
I'm pleased that Ballmer is giving money to support more research, but I don't have a problem with asking what society is getting in return for that massive tax break and colossal infusion of public funding.
The answer, to me, is: quite a lot. Harvard's contributions to research are remarkable, and the world is better for it. But I think it's reasonable to question such a favored tax status and high level of public funding for a university that keeps its undergraduate enrollment so low (especially for low income students).
Can you provide me links with some facts? Is Harvard that much different than Princeton, Stanford, Columbia or Yale? Why are you comparing the big state school model with the Ivy model? Probably every big state school enrolls more low-income students than any Ivy league school. And shouldn't government research money go to the schools with the best research? I checked and Harvard isn't in the top 10: http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/04/25/universities-...
I'm pleased that Ballmer is giving money to support more research, but I don't have a problem with asking what society is getting in return for that massive tax break and colossal infusion of public funding.
The answer, to me, is: quite a lot. Harvard's contributions to research are remarkable, and the world is better for it. But I think it's reasonable to question such a favored tax status and high level of public funding for a university that keeps its undergraduate enrollment so low (especially for low income students).