The application fee is to deter middle class+ applicants from applying for too many universities, resulting in a lower quality application pool and more work for the admissions committee and making the process more random. The only problem in including the high application fee is for middle class applicants. I think the application fee waiver eligibility income threshold is too high, and is damaging especially for most international applicants who don't qualify. Personally, I do qualify for a fee waiver, but many of my friends who are only a bit more affluent than I am have to pay ~$500-1000+ just to apply to colleges. ($70-80/school)
Absolutely disgusting display monetizing education. Ivy League enrolls rich kids and teaches them the important knowledge of business management, politics, economy manipulation, while public schools for the poor teach us how to be good productive workers. Classism 101!
Actually elite colleges are simply dedicated to make sure the right people know the right people. Clarence thomas, the Clintons and Robert Reich were all in the same graduating class. The only way to maintain the caste system is to maintain the bonds between caste members.
Well Harvard doesn't make any money off tuition. They break even on that. Harvard makes money from donations and investments. They also are a collection of 13 schools and research hospitals. They do more than just teach, it also hosts lots of cutting edge research and funds faculty for writing papers & books.
Also look at the president of Harvard she copied her thesis and is pro genocide. The value of the degree means less and less. Most graduates cheated and are woefully incompetent in their field
@@jvb3297The issue is the loophole of "reinvesting into the org" means instead of profits going to "private" investors, it goes to the "private" owners and "administrators" of the non-profit. A lot of charities (coughAnd churchescough) are scams that use being non-profit entities to personally enrich themselves by donating maybe 5-10% to their causes while using the rest to pay the bills of said entity and pocketing the rest. Plus, they don't pay taxes.
Remember, these Ivy League snob factories are interconnected webs of inner circles dedicated to getting around insidet trading and other regulations so these endowments can make bank.
Zuckerman, Wasserman, Soloman, Goldman, etc. Still wondering who controls Ismerica?? Kushner got into Harvard after his criminal daddy made a "donation." These people are running circles around non-zooish Americans. 😂
Everybody knows about it by now. 00:58 The word "elite" in regards to an educational institution does not necessarily mean quality. But it most definitely means over priced.
I didn't know nonprofits got better deals on government loans. It seems that there should be a requirement that the "nonprofit" doesn't have billions of dollars in available funds that could be used instead of a loan before being approved for these loans.
the whole point of a loan is if you don't have enough money to buy it. They should say "oh you want a 30m loan, looks like you have 30bn in assets, you don't need a loan"
Let's say it costs $100k per student to run the school every year. If they have about 1000 students per UG level, that's $400 m/year. With $50 billion in investments, they only need a return of 0.8% to give all those students free tuition. You can easily get that much in a CD. Of course it's not that great to give free tuition to just rich kids, but at least the school is using its money for education.
Abolishing non-profits would hurt a lot of really good organizations doing important work. Instead, the government needs to yank the non-profit status of these orgs that are clearly not operating on a non-profit basis. That’s how we operate in Canada. 🤷🏼♀️
This frankly would do a lot less than most people think. And it actually would discourage withdrawals/using the money for investments. That's unless you just impose a property/wealth tax that is not seen elsewhere in the US tax code except on local properties.
I think this is a bit of a blanket statement. There are plenty of private non-profit universities, such as smaller institutions like liberal arts colleges, that deserve to have their students benefit from some forms of public funding. I'm aiming to be a neuroscience professor at a smaller institution (such as a liberal arts college) within the next few years (public universities have their own set of crippling problems that I've experienced first hand), and I want to be able to apply for government grants so I can pay students who do research in my lab. The difference lies in how endowment funds are used. Smaller private non-profits, such as many liberal arts colleges, pride themselves (rightfully so) in the vast number and value of scholarships they give out. I can count on two hands people I know personally who went to some tiny private non-profit school that nobody has heard of and paid nothing or next to nothing in terms of tuition. That said, tax the f*k out of Harvard, and any "educational" institution that grotesquely hoards wealth like they do. Put that money towards community colleges. And tax mega churches. Definitely tax the f*k out of mega churches:)
Everyone needs more than their salary to be financial stable. The best thing to do with your money is to invest it rightly, because money left for saving always end up used with no returns.
I’m looking for something to venture into on a short term basis, I really need to create an alternate source of income, what do you thing I should be buying?
Oh man, churches are a big one! They don't get taxed AND they always ask for tithes! So many preachers with luxury watches, cars, and clothes fully paid for by the congregation
Well, one could also argue that these endowments are some of the most long-term oriented LPs in the industry. I'm not sure if the money would be better used by the government.
Better idea: get government out of the way so the churches can do the private charity they want to do, then tax individuals instead of churches so those who take in money from "church for sale" schemes (the people you ACTUALLY want to target) pay the taxes you're looking for
God these numbers are staggering. Over here in UMass Amherst - not a bad college by any means and considered "Massachusetts's 'flagship' campus" - we have nowhere NEAR this kind of money, yet we've enrolled over double the number of new students this semester than Harvard. Where the hell is our money, Governor?
Read Dale and Kruger. The elite universities are not hurting low income people, they hurt rich people! Elite schools price discriminate, that is they charge much more to students from rich families than to students from low income families. They are a tax on the rich and Dale and Kruger shows that there is no benefit to going there than to a state University. BTW Florida tuition is among the low states and the amount paid per student by government is among the lowest states. Florida spending per student is about half of what Michigan spending per student is. Also too many students are going to college in 2024. The states could easily cut spending on college and make tuition free. They could at least do what Florida does. I can provide links for all of this do not trust me.
@@Backinblackbunny009 Have you read Dale and Kruger on elite universities? Have you looked at post-secondary schooling per student spending by state? Have you read Richard Vedder or Brian Caplan or Freddie DeBoer on the subject? I recommend you read them they may be wrong but they might change your mind.
@traybernwell the Harvard is a nonprofit making boatloads of money because of how muck they Jack up tuition to godly degree while not getting pushback and is actually being rewarded for it. while an functional individual is a person who’s struggling pay check to paycheck cause of how the richer individuals of economy set it up.
It does for students from low income families. Read Dale and Kruger. The elite universities are not hurting low income people, they hurt rich people! Elite schools price discriminate, that is they charge much more to students from rich families than to students from low income families. They are a tax on the rich and Dale and Kruger shows that there is no benefit to going there than to a state University. BTW Florida tuition is among the low states and the amount paid per student by government is among the lowest states. Florida spending per student is about half of what Michigan spending per student is. Also too many students are going to college in 2024. The states could easily cut spending on college and make tuition free. They could at least do what Florida does. I can provide links for all of this do not trust me.
@@Floccini yeah, nope! those universities are hurting low income people (some of them were not born super-talented.) and even some of the rich.. (who don't have to be, they were born rich...)
i am hearing what you are saying, but your conclusion was a bit off, it hurts almost everyone... sounds like one of those capitalist issues again (living in a country with public universities you can attend for free if below 26yo, if you pass exams)
Who benefits more from the tax-free status of the endowments than the extraordinarily compensated money managers? The less taxes the endowments pay the more money they have, the more money under management the more the managers make. Harvard is a hedge fund that trains its money managers.
By 2008, General Motors had become a small car company carrying a massive financial enterprise on top, GMAC. It was so big that it got bailed out, even as a non-bank financial institution. Harvard is basically a 50b AUM hedge fund with a decorative marketing space of old buildings and young people. They are there for the brand.
Thanks for covering this! Speaking of non-profits, could you do a deep dive into cultural institutions like museums, art galleries, and libraries? I'm part of Field Museum Workers United and would love for someone to cover this part of the unionization push!
Our Industrial Revolution required workers to read and cypher. As industry steadily grew wealthier, public education was not a gift but a necessity. Mass production required mass education. Our preindustrial class pyramid was wide and shallow with a tiny elite. Our post WW2 complex financial culture requires a much taller, more voluminous class system. The carrot of "getting ahead" simply coerces our participation, while our tiny elite continue to run the system for their advantage.
The first Raggedy School was in East End London created by a benevolent working class man who believed in kindness. Moore, an early textile mill owner opened a school that was not only very early, but treated the kids well. But his stated goal was some literacy, and docile workers. These preceded the harsh schools that George Orwell described which taught cruelty to the colonial managers and administrators of their empire.
You can get into an Ivy League with your families money. It is a "legacy" admission. You can be a dumb as a door post, but you don't have to sit an entrance exam.
Right. George W. Bush was a legacy admission to Yale. Honestly, though, the "elite-ness" of the Ivies (especially Harvard and Yale) perpetuates through our federal courts, especially at the appeals court (and most especially at SCOTUS) level. It also perpetuates through our politics, with many Presidents having gone to Harvard or Yale (the third most-common place for Presidents to have gone to school at is West Point military academy, and very few have gone to public universities). Even Obama went to Columbia. Shoot, the 2004 Presidential election had two Yale graduates facing off against each other (George W. Bush and John Kerry). In other words, the Ivies don't need to be elitist to be seen as prestigious. Their prestige is based on who their alumni are. Here's the thing with legacy admissions, though. All universities (even public universities) admit legacy students. It's just compounded at the elite private schools because they keep admissions numbers artificially low. Legacy admissions at public universities barely make a dent in the student body make-up, and are more likely to be more diverse in general. Legacy admissions at the elite private schools, though, adversely affect diversity so much that the elite schools had to take drastic measures to counter-balance, which is what led to the SFFA v. Harvard case to begin with.
I met absolute trash people at this level on another country. Zero ethics, whiny, immature, low effort. Blowing classes that cost tens of thousands because "whatever dude". Ganging up on anyone who dared to say anything to them, demand, etc. I had a scholarship btw.
I did a stadium job for a college, and the entire time all I thought to myself was... "if this football stadium, brings in millions in profit every game, why in the flying fk, is tuition here so steep?"
I had an immigrant student who wanted to go to Harvard. I talked to them about how much more affordable state schools were, etc. The student accused me of being racist, stomping on their dreams, etc. This student danced around showing off their financial aid package, etc. Well 5 years after, the student came back and tearfully told me they had screwed up their life with a worthless degree, huge student loan debt, etc. 😭 I sat and cried with my student. Contrast that student with another student who did trade school on a full scholarship, worked as a plumber for 4 years and then paid cash for an engineering degree at our state college after completing prerequisites at the cheaper community college. Ivy League schools often aren't worth it!
Tuition for one year at Harvard: $54,000 4% returns on moderately conservative portfolio worth $51 billion: $2 billion Conclusion: Harvard could give 37,000 students free tuition and not lose any money
You have to have a rate of return higher than inflation - so if inflation is 5%, then your 4% means they are actually losing purchasing power not gaining.
Well yes and no. Harvard's donations are restrictive meaning they can only be used for certain purposes outlined by the donor. Many donations are used for scholarships & financial aid for students. Most Harvard students have those programs and come out with little to no debt. Harvard is a collection of 13 schools, research labs, and teaching hospitals. The administrative costs are very high. So although they have a high adowment the costs to run Harvard are high. I don't think it's an issue really. Harvard has low admission rates so they can give better education by having smaller classes.
Let's write 2 books. "How to manage your business like Harvard" and "How to manage your business like UC Berkeley" which will sell more? Change"business" to anything else like family, life, relationship...and you will still get same sales results.
Best part was where the woman says it's a real problem that Trump tried to do something about this issue because he has the wrong letter next to his name. Seems it isnt the problem she wants fixed, but the credit for fixing it going to the right political party.
If you think a “redesign” is possible, you’re out of touch with reality and haven’t taken a look at Human History.The top 1% of the United States controls 51% of the wealth. They don’t like the system, they are the system.☮️
Тhe point is that the middle class and only them would be obvious would push throughout times for that type of change. The old money will try to sabotage the new money also. They are aware of your desires to get ahead. Each generation faces the same class problems. You won't change their system. They will change some politics for you to further suffocate you if they see you growing in power and strength. It's all in cycles that will repeat similar outcomes and scenarios.
I was a scholarship student paying my own way on non-tuition needs at Columbia and it was a lesson in snobbery, gate-keeping, and self-blind privilege.
I was married to a development officer in the 1980s. We knew it was gross, but did not see the big picture yet. Your quote from the book on early endowments is critical - endowment did not remove corrupting influence, it just shifted its source.
@@gogogo26993 Most research in Germany is being done at external research institutes. These institutes are often located right next to a university or even directly on campus and many of the people doing research there might also study/teach at that university, but anything they publish will be credited to the institute, not the university. International university rankings greatly emphasize research output, which is the main reason why you'll never see any German universities near the top.
@@sanniepstein4835 Let's not act like the US is in Germany because it's doing the Germans a favor. Their presence is, above all else, self-serving. None of their wars in the Middle East would have been possible without Ramstein Airbase and the Landstuhl Medical Regional Center, for one. They've gotten more value out of those two facilities alone than they ever could have spent "defending" Germany.
A little nit/further context on the fundraising and bond issuance segment: to be clear, they can't fundraise specifically for a building and then not spend it on a building, because that's fraud. What they generally do is hold big "comprehensive campaigns" in which they can raise funds that are unrestricted (to be spent on anything) or restricted for an amount of time or a specific purpose. Very often the especially large gifts come with strings attached, i.e. they can only use that money for scholarships as a common example. For restricted funds, they cannot use that money for daily operations, new buildings, anything outside those restrictions, and depending on the school A Lot of that pot of endowment money may be restricted in some way. For new buildings, it often more depends on the interest rates. So right now, interest rates are high, which means borrowing is expensive, which means no one wants to use bonds to build things. They instead fundraise for the buildings, or potentially dip into their unrestricted funds (probably not the latter, because high interest rates mean better investment returns). Commonly though, schools will build new buildings either out of their standard capital portion of their annual budget (usually for smaller buildings or renovations), specific fundraising for that building, bond issuance, or a combination of the last two. Tax-exempt bonds also aren't really a tax dodge on the university's part, but more on the investor side. They're bonds where the investor doesn't have to pay taxes on the interest the university pays them, vs taxable bonds (which universities also sometimes use) where they would. The advantage to the university is that investors accept slightly lower interest rates on tax exempt bonds because they save money on the tax side. There's tons of other variables on that though, including how safe the investment is, which is a big reason universities sit on that much money - because it makes them a safer bet to loan money too, so they get charged less to borrow. One benefit for you though of those tax exempt bonds is that they're publicly traded, which means by federal regulations they have to post financial audits of the university's annual operations publicly online if they use those bonds, and you can go find out how that school is using its money if you want to. These are continuing disclosure requirements per the SEC, and you can find these documents for free on emma.msrb.org (though it is a pain in the ass to search without CUSIP identifiers for specific bonds). Schools sometimes post their audits directly on their websites too, but ymmv.
Taking your argument at face value, which entity tasked with enforcing the law is going to enforce it against any Ivy League school? The most expensive lesson I've learned in my life is that laws are meaningless when those charged with enforcing the law refuse to do their job.
@@rickb3650Yeah, I also don't understand how posting the information is going to hold them accountable. I don't even understand why they don't just fabricate or copy & paste the same info year after year.
@@eugenetswong meaning why they don't fabricate their financial information? Because the government does care if they steal from or defraud rich people (their investors and donors), like the SEC is really strict about that, and these are rules written around transparency and financial disclosures for rich investors. These audits are put together by third party firms too, not the universities themselves, and then reviewed by other financial advisors, investors, rating agencies, on and on down the chain, so there's a lot of scrutiny on those documents
The problem is that college is supposed to get you trained for work and universities are supposed to teach you how to think. Because everyone ASSUMES university = college = better job, the institutions can take advantage of this and your money. And leave you high and dry. The reform has to be more basic. You should be allowed to choose your goal and be trained accordingly and pay accordingly.
Over the last few decades state legislators significantly decrease funding to state university, so it made sense that those universities had to raise tuition. While at the same time, private school’s tuitions stayed 10 to 20% above the public schools. Seems like a good way to make more money
Excellent job of both exposing the problem and proposing a solution. The one the that baffles me is that you interviewed a young lady that said, " Republicans have co-oped the issue and that's bad". Wouldn't that rather suggest that a bipartisan solution could pass? If both sides agree maybe we can do something! I was surprised you just let her statement stand that widespread agreement on these issues across the aisle is somehow a bad thing.
I don't understand why it is bad that Republicans are also co-opting the taxing of private universities. Wouldn't it be good that this can be bipartisan issue and pass Congress/Senate?
Because some progressives like the feeling competing against republicans for over some moral highground. It's probably not ill-intended, just some human nature kind of thing.
All college should be free. If they want stadiums and sports teams they should have to get the donors to pay. Or just go back to being learning institutions. The government should pay to educate.
Your clearly in the wrong party. One thing people miss is that the Ivy league trains the regulators so the investments are not as risky. Things that were illegal when I did accountancy in the early 80's are now normal. The risk is still there and we see crashes but the regulator is as confused as everyone else because he or she was never taught the danger. There is also a partial ban in teaching the free market alternatives so people get confused when free market solutions work. I'm in Australia, in 2001 John Howard, our PM, warned about the subprime mortgages in the USA. The industry, largely trained in the ivy league or its Australian clone universities, angrily disputed his warnings. Howard banned Australian investment in the US Mortgage market creating two bad banks for those that still wanted to play in the US mortgages. He saved the country from the early damage. John Howard's a free market conservative. Subprime mortgages were mandated by the Clinton government and based on the incorrect teachings of Ben Bernanke when he was an ivy league teacher, that US housing was out of synch from east coast to west coast. His data was wrong, thrown off by the fact that soldiers and sailors from the pacific theater were all paid backpay in the same month and spent on Californian real estate.
It sounds like a lot of things can be fixed by removing their status as a non-profit. This way, they don't have access to government loans and funds for non-profits. The only problem is that once privatized they may start doing the things corps do to get out of taxes
Most non-profits have a minimum spend requirement. Universities do not. All you have to do is make the universities follow the same rule for other non-profits.
I am all for doing that with the caveat that there is a drastic overall to our education system. Most of our public schools act as school to prison pipelines (and if aren't they at the very least run on prison logic) with some locking their children in shit covered solitary confinement cells. I like the idea in practice, but we need to fix the human rights abuses that go on there before we forcibly subject more children to such conditions.
How could it possibly benefit the people to have grossly corrupt, incompetent, power-mad bureaucrats and politicians in charge of everything? The founding vision was that the state would be restricted to defense, international trade, and basic law, and we the people would create the nation. Don't let envy make you crazy or stupid.
As far as I know, "almost half of all Stanford undergraduates receive need-based financial aid. Families earning less than $150,000 with assets typical of that income level pay no tuition. Families earning less than $100,000 with assets typical of that income level pay no tuition or room and board." So, how is this classism?
One thing rich people don’t understand is that if we fuck up financially, due to ignorance or honest mistakes or fraud and scams or through a legal issue or medical issues sometimes we have such a short leash before our lives are ruined forever.
This sounds like a hack job by someone salty because he didn’t get in. Harvard tuition is free to students whose household income is less than $85,000 per year. Harvard also runs a community college called the Harvard Extension School, taught by Harvard faculty. Anyone can sign up for classes, there is no application process, and you can earn a four year degree from HES. Classes are held at night and you can take as long as you need to graduate. Taxing nonprofits is a conversation that’s worth having, but Harvard does use its endowment to support its middle and low income students, graduate students, faculty, and the community.
@@AlanPontes-m2p No that’s not true at all, HES grads are well respected in the community as being pragmatic, hard-working, and smart. Because while anyone can attend classes, to be accepted into the degree program, you have to pass three courses with a B or better average, including the infamously difficult expository writing course. Most students wash out. Also, there are various ways of going to school for practically nothing, the most popular of which is to get some job at Harvard University doing anything, and then courses at HES cost $40. A friend of mine did exactly this, and graduated with zero debt. Compare that to the poor schmucks across the river at BU, who pay $80,000 per year to party.
This is an echo chamber of people who don’t know anything about University budgeting, the nonprofit sector and federal law. Instead of attacking institutions of higher education, you should focus your energy towards the institutions at the root of your grievances.
Lol, and I’m sure you’re an expert, right? Please enlighten us on how what the narrator in the video has wrong and how these other institutions are really to blame. We’re waiting
Who says they’re attacking the university? Everyone knows higher education is a good thing but when these colleges start to seem like banks instead of schools, its time to start calling them out. Stop battling for them.
Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and possibly other Ivy League schools cover 100% of student fees, including room and board, for those who cannot afford to pay. Most of the endowments at Harvard and Yale come from alumni donations. I volunteer at a nonprofit that supports children in family homeless shelters, and in recent years, I have seen exceptionally talented students from these shelters gain admission to our country's top three schools, receiving a free education.
I went to Harvard for undergrad and later taught at Berkeley. 1. These days, it's relatively cheap to go to Harvard because the financial aid is generous for low- and middle-income families. I went to Harvard for less than what my friends paid for state school. More than half of students get no aid, but that's just because admissions is biased towards well-resourced applicants. 2. The size of endowment is felt at all levels, from professors to the undergrads. The quality of the facilities, access to resources, and the events and programs held there is great for the people who study and work there. 3. This video really likes to praise Berkeley, but the Berkeley system does a terrible job at supporting its students. For undergrads, it's a toxic, cutthroat environment that is difficult to navigate and does a poor job of facilitating learning and teaching. Not to mention, it exploits its academic workers. I think the proposed tax is reasonable, but I disagree with many of the talking points in this video. EDIT: Forgot to mention the achievement gap at Berkeley. Of course, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison due to the differences in admissions, but Berkeley should not be the model we use for the rest of the country.
@@eugenetswong The titles on YT videos tend to have less nuance than the videos themselves, but to answer your question, as long as the money is going into research and education and as long as the admissions process is equitable, that money should not be taxed or seized.
@@LeseanDeVon See that bullet point. Less than what you'd pay for state school in the US. When I went, if your family income was less than 6 figures, you went for free, room and board with unlimited dining included.
I was reading about this yesterday, and I'm 100% for removing or reducing their tax exempt status. We won't get into how the money that founded those "elite" universities was made, but they certainly weren't doing a public service. I would love it if you guys would do a story on the inequality of access to entheogenic substances. The wealthy are free to use these substances therapeutically, but low income people are being priced out of these therapeutic options. All people deserve equal access to all medicines, and yet those in the highest category of need are unable to afford to participate in these therapies.
Medicine and health care in general is so obscenely expensive because there are tons of patents and government regulations that only exist to keep the existing manufacturers in power and not have to face competition. The solution isn't to force these companies to sell for cheaper, it's simply to allow more companies to form and sell the same products at a lower price and compete with the monopolies.
I would love to hear about one wealthy person, corporation or institution that has not done something corrupt, abused the tax laws or taken money from the government. We need to tax religious organizations as well.
These colleges need their tax-exempt status taken away. As well as stopping all Federal funding. I believe that colleges should control the college loan program. No Government funding. Let them decide if their money should go to a student who, cannot paid it back. Would they be so fast to loan their own money to finance degrees that offer no future of employment?
To remain a status symbol. It's a brand but wtf does that brand mean when there are so many extraordinary people using that money that can do great things so many more immigrants and too applicants exist nowadays compared to before not just immigrants too that was just an example. So you're telling me my best friend who he's got a 36 and a 1600, 4.0, multiple 5 ap tests (12) and started 2 clubs including going to national events still has to sit and pray they get into one of these prentious fucking institutions to uphold their brand and status symbol? It's literally just a lottery, because some jobs are just held back by just that and planning out your life since 14/15. And that's not just an anecdote, there's so many more examples of bullshit. Not to mention legacy and money donors when it was much much easier to get into these stupid ducking schools. Even if we assume everything is just mericrotic, this fucking stupid admissions system makes NO god damn sense. A low income student would just have to sit and pray they get a golden ticket.
"Hurt the workers...", "Not a public good..." All of his statements are opinion. I would guess all the guests on the program have railed against the former president, yet you said yourself, he's the only one to start a trend in taxing the 'elite' schools. I say let them show their true colors (i.e. Palestine vs. Israel support) and see what that gets them.
If you want to understand why crime and inequality exist look no further than university. What else should one expect when they refuse those that need it the most?
I really don't understand the problem if government isn't giving them money. If you don't or can't go to these schools, just don't go. There are thousands of colleges around the country. Tax them right so there is more money to fund public schools but it shouldn't bother you what they are doing as "private" schools.
There are several laws of the Ivy League schools are breaking in terms of educational opportunity. I won’t address that because it is a much easier route, they should be treated in terms of tax according to what their primary operation for instance what they spend the most time and energy on. In the case of Ivy League schools its corporate profits therefore they are a corporation and a corporation cannot be a 501(C) 3 nonprofit organization so they should have the status stripped away and have to pay taxes on every dime they make. Donors to such corporations should not be allowed to deduct their donations from their income tax.
Ivy league schools like Harvard charge foreigners higher tuition. So, foreign students are more financially beneficial to the college. This allows them to bring in more money with less students. Foreign students are like legacy students, both are pricing out people in the lower class.
Great job guys! I love this video. I’d actually take this a step further. I think we should tax endowments of elite private K-12 schools for the same reason that elite universities should be taxed. Here in Colorado education is chronically underfunded - and this really is kind of the model for a plutocracy. If you underfund things like education and healthcare, then only the wealthy have quality access to it - and they can pay for it because their taxes are lower. Finland has the best public schools in the world because they really don’t give many breaks to private schools - almost everybody sends their kids to public schools.
"Harvard should be opening a second and third campus" This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what makes up an elite organization. First, by opening additional campuses, you dilute the quality of faculty and the unified structure of the student experience. I understand that Cornell opened a second campus in Dubai. However, that is merely branding. The two schools can have little in common.
The population of US has grown since 1970’s, so proportionally, Harvard class size should have proportionally increased to accommodate population increases.
@@special1740 If you have elite faculty members addressing class sizes of 500 you no longer have an elite school. The elite schools, in general, boast smaller size coupled closely with closer contact with faculty members. If you increase size significantly, you dilute that close contact. In general, I see all of these grand and glorious ideas about how to get more even distribution of quality education, and I have not seen one that does no involve serious questions about the proponents understanding of education. There are, in fact, other elite schools of which you have probably never heard. They are even smaller than the average Ivy.
I would love to see you do one of your excellent videos on this topic - The lack of publicness in public elementary and secondary education. The way these institutions are being hijacked for profit and social control, and similarly to elite colleges, present themselves as social mobility engines while performing the opposite function. If you have already done so, my apologies. A concept i see brimming up in your stuff is the "pyrrhic defeat." Might be worth a look at The Rich Get Richer The Poor Get Prison for anyone who wants that theory laid out in depth.
“Revolving door” doesnt apply to universities. It’s the one of the express purposes of colleges to graduate people that work in businesses. You wouldn’t say “look at all these schools using google to search, after graduating students joined google…”
This is a crime of historic proportions. Especially when we consider for expensive public college tuition had become. What a disgrace. The unfortunate part is that a not insignificant number policy makers either went to these schools or are funded by people that went to these schools, this will not change without a grass roots effort to do so.
The problem is that so many jobs require completely arbitrary college degrees, and modern culture makes going to college seem much more important than it actually is. Therefore public schools get to pay pretty much whatever they want and because so many people think that "you need to go to college to succeed in life" thousands of students pay for it even if they literally are not able to afford it. Through most of the college system's history, universities were pretty much just networking circles for the wealthy, you didn't primarily go there to learn because you would learn so much more with real life experience than spending half a year in some classroom.
I was offered two interviews from Harvard for two different programs. I applied both times to see how hard it was. Apparently, not hard for me. I didn’t go because I didn’t want to attend any east coast schools. Except Princeton. I would have dropped everything for Princeton. But they didn’t have my program.
Once money earning income is taxed at a higher rate than labor, then non-profit status should be debated/ considered. Activities done for the public good should be tax exempt. Minimal overhead for those activities can be tax exempt for the facilitation of those activities. All other costs should not be tax deductible (ie. The donor only gets to write off the portion of their donation that goes to eligible activities. 10% of a charity's funds go to good works, their donors can only write off 10% of their donations.)
No they can't, because Harvard wouldn't be financing them. Harvard would be paying the government a tax. The government would earmark that tax for community colleges. So the government is still running the colleges, not Harvard.
Even if that were true, which it isn’t, having more diverse alumni would preclude having so much white guilt that you can’t denounce genocide if brown people do it.
Equity but not equality. How far we have changed. Equality means that everybody has the same chance. Equity means everybody has the same. People are different. Some work hard. Some just Sails through with little effort. The difference between socialism and Capitalism is reward. That is why most socialist societies fail. I work more hours than you, I have a good idea, I risk so I can achieve. These are all foreign in socialism.
The money that appears to be endowment wealth that nobody is using, actually turns out to be market capital that keeps America running. If all the endowment money were drained, that would pull money out of our ability to make goods and services, pay wages, ... all those good things that come from new businesses that have better ideas and are better situated to meet the needs of the present and future generations. There are people who don't have a college degree who are making fortunes through entrepreneurship, thanks to the funds that are invested in the stock market. This is a way of sharing the wealth of the university with those who can't get a college degree or don't want one. It may even turn out that the really smart people turn up their noses at places like Harvard, and instead find ways to put Harvard's endowment investments to good use in the real world economy - things like providing us with clean water (plumbing, reservoirs, water treatment plants, water systems), or growing our food, or fixing our roofs and making vehicles we can drive, etc. There are many signs of crumbling infrastructure, and it takes private businesses and capital to generate the resources and ideas that governments and private entities want to pay to get those jobs done.
Who cares if another political party has a good idea? If the idea is good, get on board with it, and if it is bad, oppose it, whether your party agrees or not. Instead of trying to get your party on board with a good idea, how about just getting Americans in general to see the merits. And while looking at merits, consider potential downsides and unintended consequences as well, not just motives or wishful outcomes.
Great episode, but you are missing over half the story. *(a)* public schools & universities do not need to make profits, the government issues their own currency, it is a simple public monopoly. Tax payments do not fund the government, they are redemption operations. Tax liabilities imposed by the State drive *_demand_* for the otherwise worthless currency, not supply of it for the only legal monopoly issuer (government via fiat and state chartered banks via credit). *(b)* hedge funds cannot legally create net new issue state currency, every trade in finance is thus a net negative sum game, so when Yale or Harvard gain someone else loses, usually at the end of the line, the poorest workers. So not only are hedge fund investments by public school unnecessary, they are highly dystopian and regressive. The government cannot ever run out of its own currency back by coercive tax liabilities, they would need to run out of computers with which to mark-up bank accounts, or "run out of votes" in Parliament to authorize the accounting entries, that is the only way the US Gov can "run out" of its own currency, by voluntary (idiotic) choice. Eg., self-imposed debt ceiling. Or the Obama lie: "We've run out of money to bail out main street, sorry folks." The "tax payer" does not fund the government spending, it's the exact reverse. Workers fund the State in *real terms* by exchanging their goods or labour time in return for the tax credit (aka. state currency). Most lamestream economists have this completely backwards. Hence neoliberalism and needless self-imposed austerity. See See smithwillsuffice.github.io/ohanga-pai/questions/1_basic_ohangapai/ for some MMT basics.
MMT only works in a vacuum, where the USD is the only game in town and the government can enforce its status as the solely acceptable currency. The second anybody loses faith in it and has an alternative, let's say, the CNY, or the EUR, or the brownie bucks I made off my printer and back with my pastry monopoly in the neighborhood, the whole thing comes crashing down. Also, MMT has some *really* dystopian implications and justifies imperialism and totalitarianism in order to achieve that level of fiscal control and power. We are only able to entertain this idea simply because of the power of the USD as the reserve currency and the currency of petrol. If we were to somehow lose this favored position and not be the reserve currency, we would lose complete confidence in our currency's value and enter "money printer go brrr" status. MMT is the boogeyman that gives Austrian economists justified night terrors and does any sort of anti-austerity economics dirty.
When I was in college (a state college) in the early '90s. one of my professors said that there was no difference in an education from our school and one from Harvard except for alumni working together (networking) and ability to fail/kick out low performing students. The resources were all the same.
"The right wing has co-opted..." (14:01) Another way of saying this: "Having long since abandoned the working class, liberals and Democrats have made it possible for disingenuous actors to find success selling a populist message."
I don't agree that taxing is the proper solution. Private non-profit organizations are required by the IRS to distribute 5% of assets every year to maintain their tax exempt status. So either enforce that or raise that percentage. It would also be helpful if governments would not subsidize colleges and students that attend schools with large endowment, but yet very low attendance. And lastly it would help if society as a whole would not place such high value on an education from an institution that favors the rich over the poor without little regard for merit.
Why the hell a university with that much money is even charging money for admission makes no sense to me.
They are in it for the money. To the rich enough is never enough.
Actually, what you’re paying for is access to the Oligarchy. Or, as Dave has said: “The real White people!” 😂☮️
So you work for free? I need a few jobs doing.
@@RichardDuncan-ju1xk More like pay them out of the money they already have.
The application fee is to deter middle class+ applicants from applying for too many universities, resulting in a lower quality application pool and more work for the admissions committee and making the process more random. The only problem in including the high application fee is for middle class applicants. I think the application fee waiver eligibility income threshold is too high, and is damaging especially for most international applicants who don't qualify. Personally, I do qualify for a fee waiver, but many of my friends who are only a bit more affluent than I am have to pay ~$500-1000+ just to apply to colleges. ($70-80/school)
Absolutely disgusting display monetizing education. Ivy League enrolls rich kids and teaches them the important knowledge of business management, politics, economy manipulation, while public schools for the poor teach us how to be good productive workers. Classism 101!
Actually elite colleges are simply dedicated to make sure the right people know the right people. Clarence thomas, the Clintons and Robert Reich were all in the same graduating class. The only way to maintain the caste system is to maintain the bonds between caste members.
Well Harvard doesn't make any money off tuition. They break even on that. Harvard makes money from donations and investments. They also are a collection of 13 schools and research hospitals. They do more than just teach, it also hosts lots of cutting edge research and funds faculty for writing papers & books.
Also look at the president of Harvard she copied her thesis and is pro genocide. The value of the degree means less and less. Most graduates cheated and are woefully incompetent in their field
Harvard makes their money from private equity funds and hedge funds that are run by non Ivy League graduates. Not idiot sons of the wealthy.
It's worse than that. The poor and minorities are taught to be obedient and "oppressed" political pawns.
A non-profit that makes a disgusting amount of profit is an oxymoron.
looks at my "non profit" hospital ceo giving himself a 19.5% pay raise to 6 million
@@jvb3297The issue is the loophole of "reinvesting into the org" means instead of profits going to "private" investors, it goes to the "private" owners and "administrators" of the non-profit. A lot of charities (coughAnd churchescough) are scams that use being non-profit entities to personally enrich themselves by donating maybe 5-10% to their causes while using the rest to pay the bills of said entity and pocketing the rest. Plus, they don't pay taxes.
the profit becomes an "exspense"
endowments are the main problem, the majority of the profits are from endowments
Learnt long ago that non profit means no dividends. They have surpluses.
Remember, these Ivy League snob factories are interconnected webs of inner circles dedicated to getting around insidet trading and other regulations so these endowments can make bank.
america, home of the rich, land of the indoctrinated.
Zuckerman, Wasserman, Soloman, Goldman, etc. Still wondering who controls Ismerica?? Kushner got into Harvard after his criminal daddy made a "donation." These people are running circles around non-zooish Americans. 😂
Everybody knows about it by now.
00:58 The word "elite" in regards to an educational institution does not necessarily mean quality.
But it most definitely means over priced.
You pay for name services and connections a normal school would flunk below average students these schools just shuffle you into a different program
Wait until they realize the meaning of "prestige" lol.
By keeping their numbers low the know scarcity creates the illusion of exclusivity. First and foremost all these Ivy Leagues should be paying taxes!
But then Harvard has their extension school scam, so they can have their cake and eat it too. Its elitist and it’s a degree mill
Like diamonds😂
@@RareGenXer A very apt comparison!
This "institution" isn't a school with some money. It's a BANK with some students.
damn underrated comment here
@@dingowingo7977 for real, it should definitely be higher up.
Exactly
yeah
It’s run by greedy democrats.
What did you expect??
Hedge funds in general are an unsavory blight on the investment landscape.
The entire concept of investing (I have money, therefore I deserve free money) is an unsavory blight on the entire world.
@@DistrustHumanz >
Toe-may-toe Toe-mah-toe
I have to agree, after all, you are basically saying the same thing I said, with a twist
u can lose it so it has a risk .so its fair u get returns for taking that risk @@DistrustHumanz
@@DistrustHumanz
@@DistrustHumanz Imo it's just gambling with extra steps.
I didn't know nonprofits got better deals on government loans. It seems that there should be a requirement that the "nonprofit" doesn't have billions of dollars in available funds that could be used instead of a loan before being approved for these loans.
Yeah, that doesn't seem right, the reason you give a better deal is because you see them as disadvantaged, not having any access to capital otherwise.
the whole point of a loan is if you don't have enough money to buy it. They should say "oh you want a 30m loan, looks like you have 30bn in assets, you don't need a loan"
Let's say it costs $100k per student to run the school every year. If they have about 1000 students per UG level, that's $400 m/year. With $50 billion in investments, they only need a return of 0.8% to give all those students free tuition. You can easily get that much in a CD. Of course it's not that great to give free tuition to just rich kids, but at least the school is using its money for education.
You need to include inflation in your calculation if you use CD's.
Indoctrination, is not Education.
@@FlocciniAnd yet the concept remains the same.
Just abolish the tax category of non-profits. If they actually operate such as to not have a profit, they won't need that tax break.
I feel like every non-profit I have ever heard of was just a way to tax dodge. Wonder how the EU treats them...
@@jvb3297That certainly doesn’t seem to be what’s going on here. The endowments just grow and grow while the schools collect millions in tuition fees.
Abolishing non-profits would hurt a lot of really good organizations doing important work. Instead, the government needs to yank the non-profit status of these orgs that are clearly not operating on a non-profit basis. That’s how we operate in Canada. 🤷🏼♀️
I work for a so-called nonprofit at the end of the year they give them selves BIG bonuses and like magic no profit
This frankly would do a lot less than most people think. And it actually would discourage withdrawals/using the money for investments. That's unless you just impose a property/wealth tax that is not seen elsewhere in the US tax code except on local properties.
Harvard: A Hedge Fund with a University attached to it.
What a joke.
They're selling prestige and status to the top 1%
Private non-profit universities deserve $0 in public funding, and $0 in tax breaks. That money should exclusively go to public schools.
silence communist! I mean.. socialist :)
If we're going to take away the tax benefits from specific non-profits then religious institutions should be next.
I think this is a bit of a blanket statement. There are plenty of private non-profit universities, such as smaller institutions like liberal arts colleges, that deserve to have their students benefit from some forms of public funding.
I'm aiming to be a neuroscience professor at a smaller institution (such as a liberal arts college) within the next few years (public universities have their own set of crippling problems that I've experienced first hand), and I want to be able to apply for government grants so I can pay students who do research in my lab.
The difference lies in how endowment funds are used. Smaller private non-profits, such as many liberal arts colleges, pride themselves (rightfully so) in the vast number and value of scholarships they give out. I can count on two hands people I know personally who went to some tiny private non-profit school that nobody has heard of and paid nothing or next to nothing in terms of tuition.
That said, tax the f*k out of Harvard, and any "educational" institution that grotesquely hoards wealth like they do. Put that money towards community colleges. And tax mega churches. Definitely tax the f*k out of mega churches:)
Jobs will pay your bills, business will make you rich but investment makes and keep you wealthy! I pray everyone here becomes successful!
Everyone needs more than their salary to be financial stable. The best thing to do with your money is to invest it rightly, because money left for saving always end up used with no returns.
I’m looking for something to venture into on a short term basis, I really need to create an alternate source of income, what do you thing I should be buying?
Crypto/stock investment but you will need a professional help on that
She's active on face book @
Kate Mellon Bruce
Yes tax these private schools already! What the hell is taking so long. Tax the churches too, then people can pay less taxes
Oh man, churches are a big one! They don't get taxed AND they always ask for tithes! So many preachers with luxury watches, cars, and clothes fully paid for by the congregation
Well, one could also argue that these endowments are some of the most long-term oriented LPs in the industry. I'm not sure if the money would be better used by the government.
Better idea: get government out of the way so the churches can do the private charity they want to do, then tax individuals instead of churches so those who take in money from "church for sale" schemes (the people you ACTUALLY want to target) pay the taxes you're looking for
People want taxation but do not consider the actual process and effects of taxation.
Facts
God these numbers are staggering. Over here in UMass Amherst - not a bad college by any means and considered "Massachusetts's 'flagship' campus" - we have nowhere NEAR this kind of money, yet we've enrolled over double the number of new students this semester than Harvard. Where the hell is our money, Governor?
Wouldn't know about that,@traybern - life of a commuter student and all that.
Read Dale and Kruger. The elite universities are not hurting low income people, they hurt rich people!
Elite schools price discriminate, that is they charge much more to students from rich families than to students from low income families. They are a tax on the rich and Dale and Kruger shows that there is no benefit to going there than to a state University.
BTW Florida tuition is among the low states and the amount paid per student by government is among the lowest states. Florida spending per student is about half of what Michigan spending per student is. Also too many students are going to college in 2024. The states could easily cut spending on college and make tuition free. They could at least do what Florida does.
I can provide links for all of this do not trust me.
@@Floccini this is gibberish
@@Backinblackbunny009 Have you read Dale and Kruger on elite universities?
Have you looked at post-secondary schooling per student spending by state?
Have you read Richard Vedder or Brian Caplan or Freddie DeBoer on the subject?
I recommend you read them they may be wrong but they might change your mind.
yeah, strongly agree
Harvard couldn't just pay tuition for its own students. It could also pay for tuition for quite a few other schools.
@traybern no, its full of Ukrainians already, how about you?
@traybernwell the Harvard is a nonprofit making boatloads of money because of how muck they Jack up tuition to godly degree while not getting pushback and is actually being rewarded for it.
while an functional individual is a person who’s struggling pay check to paycheck cause of how the richer individuals of economy set it up.
It does for students from low income families.
Read Dale and Kruger. The elite universities are not hurting low income people, they hurt rich people!
Elite schools price discriminate, that is they charge much more to students from rich families than to students from low income families. They are a tax on the rich and Dale and Kruger shows that there is no benefit to going there than to a state University.
BTW Florida tuition is among the low states and the amount paid per student by government is among the lowest states. Florida spending per student is about half of what Michigan spending per student is. Also too many students are going to college in 2024. The states could easily cut spending on college and make tuition free. They could at least do what Florida does.
I can provide links for all of this do not trust me.
@@Floccini yeah, nope! those universities are hurting low income people (some of them were not born super-talented.) and even some of the rich.. (who don't have to be, they were born rich...)
i am hearing what you are saying, but your conclusion was a bit off, it hurts almost everyone... sounds like one of those capitalist issues again (living in a country with public universities you can attend for free if below 26yo, if you pass exams)
Who benefits more from the tax-free status of the endowments than the extraordinarily compensated money managers? The less taxes the endowments pay the more money they have, the more money under management the more the managers make. Harvard is a hedge fund that trains its money managers.
By 2008, General Motors had become a small car company carrying a massive financial enterprise on top, GMAC. It was so big that it got bailed out, even as a non-bank financial institution.
Harvard is basically a 50b AUM hedge fund with a decorative marketing space of old buildings and young people. They are there for the brand.
It's an embezzlement scam
I love hearing about all of these systemic issues in our society. the more awareness we have of them the sooner they will be fixed.
It’s on us to fix it. The current status isn’t working
A "systemic" issue which applies to a dozen or so entities in the country?
@@UnconventionalReasoning yes
@@blazehall8086 You should try to learn what "systemic" means. Or don't. Festivus is coming soon, I made a reservation for you at the celebrations.
@@UnconventionalReasoningsmall system, humongous impact
Thanks for covering this! Speaking of non-profits, could you do a deep dive into cultural institutions like museums, art galleries, and libraries? I'm part of Field Museum Workers United and would love for someone to cover this part of the unionization push!
Our Industrial Revolution required workers to read and cypher. As industry steadily grew wealthier, public education was not a gift but a necessity. Mass production required mass education. Our preindustrial class pyramid was wide and shallow with a tiny elite. Our post WW2 complex financial culture requires a much taller, more voluminous class system. The carrot of "getting ahead" simply coerces our participation, while our tiny elite continue to run the system for their advantage.
amen
The first Raggedy School was in East End London created by a benevolent working class man who believed in kindness. Moore, an early textile mill owner opened a school that was not only very early, but treated the kids well. But his stated goal was some literacy, and docile workers. These preceded the harsh schools that George Orwell described which taught cruelty to the colonial managers and administrators of their empire.
Greed destroys everything.
You can get into an Ivy League with your families money. It is a "legacy" admission. You can be a dumb as a door post, but you don't have to sit an entrance exam.
that needs to be made illegal.
Right. George W. Bush was a legacy admission to Yale. Honestly, though, the "elite-ness" of the Ivies (especially Harvard and Yale) perpetuates through our federal courts, especially at the appeals court (and most especially at SCOTUS) level. It also perpetuates through our politics, with many Presidents having gone to Harvard or Yale (the third most-common place for Presidents to have gone to school at is West Point military academy, and very few have gone to public universities). Even Obama went to Columbia. Shoot, the 2004 Presidential election had two Yale graduates facing off against each other (George W. Bush and John Kerry). In other words, the Ivies don't need to be elitist to be seen as prestigious. Their prestige is based on who their alumni are.
Here's the thing with legacy admissions, though. All universities (even public universities) admit legacy students. It's just compounded at the elite private schools because they keep admissions numbers artificially low. Legacy admissions at public universities barely make a dent in the student body make-up, and are more likely to be more diverse in general. Legacy admissions at the elite private schools, though, adversely affect diversity so much that the elite schools had to take drastic measures to counter-balance, which is what led to the SFFA v. Harvard case to begin with.
I met absolute trash people at this level on another country. Zero ethics, whiny, immature, low effort. Blowing classes that cost tens of thousands because "whatever dude". Ganging up on anyone who dared to say anything to them, demand, etc. I had a scholarship btw.
I did a stadium job for a college, and the entire time all I thought to myself was... "if this football stadium, brings in millions in profit every game, why in the flying fk, is tuition here so steep?"
I had an immigrant student who wanted to go to Harvard. I talked to them about how much more affordable state schools were, etc. The student accused me of being racist, stomping on their dreams, etc. This student danced around showing off their financial aid package, etc. Well 5 years after, the student came back and tearfully told me they had screwed up their life with a worthless degree, huge student loan debt, etc. 😭 I sat and cried with my student. Contrast that student with another student who did trade school on a full scholarship, worked as a plumber for 4 years and then paid cash for an engineering degree at our state college after completing prerequisites at the cheaper community college. Ivy League schools often aren't worth it!
Tuition for one year at Harvard: $54,000
4% returns on moderately conservative portfolio worth $51 billion: $2 billion
Conclusion: Harvard could give 37,000 students free tuition and not lose any money
You have to have a rate of return higher than inflation - so if inflation is 5%, then your 4% means they are actually losing purchasing power not gaining.
@@jaireidca inflation tends to be way below 5% and 4% is a pretty conservative investment portfolio. Besides, Harvard has PLENTY of wiggle room.
@@52flyingbicyclesnot under JB
@@jaireidca and 4% is way less than even the most conservative and safe portfolios earn per year. Hell a savings account pays 4.35% right now
Well yes and no. Harvard's donations are restrictive meaning they can only be used for certain purposes outlined by the donor. Many donations are used for scholarships & financial aid for students. Most Harvard students have those programs and come out with little to no debt.
Harvard is a collection of 13 schools, research labs, and teaching hospitals. The administrative costs are very high. So although they have a high adowment the costs to run Harvard are high. I don't think it's an issue really. Harvard has low admission rates so they can give better education by having smaller classes.
Time to remove their tax free status
the higher education lobby
Let's write 2 books. "How to manage your business like Harvard" and "How to manage your business like UC Berkeley" which will sell more? Change"business" to anything else like family, life, relationship...and you will still get same sales results.
Best part was where the woman says it's a real problem that Trump tried to do something about this issue because he has the wrong letter next to his name.
Seems it isnt the problem she wants fixed, but the credit for fixing it going to the right political party.
Meh, the reason for going to Harvard is access to Power. It’s not meant to be accessible to everyone. The system is working as designed. ☮️
Which is why the video is suggesting a redesign. What's your point?
yes and the video is saying for a redesign
what is your point
If you think a “redesign” is possible, you’re out of touch with reality and haven’t taken a look at Human History.The top 1% of the United States controls 51% of the wealth. They don’t like the system, they are the system.☮️
Тhe point is that the middle class and only them would be obvious would push throughout times for that type of change. The old money will try to sabotage the new money also. They are aware of your desires to get ahead. Each generation faces the same class problems. You won't change their system. They will change some politics for you to further suffocate you if they see you growing in power and strength. It's all in cycles that will repeat similar outcomes and scenarios.
I was a scholarship student paying my own way on non-tuition needs at Columbia and it was a lesson in snobbery, gate-keeping, and self-blind privilege.
I was married to a development officer in the 1980s. We knew it was gross, but did not see the big picture yet. Your quote from the book on early endowments is critical - endowment did not remove corrupting influence, it just shifted its source.
The 99% have to pay capital gains tax while Harvard's Billions pay almost no capital gains tax.
In Germany College is free like in most European countries. The quality of our education is really good. I hope it will stay that way.
Yes but they dont have enough money for their phd and their Experiments and Research.
@@gogogo26993 Most research in Germany is being done at external research institutes. These institutes are often located right next to a university or even directly on campus and many of the people doing research there might also study/teach at that university, but anything they publish will be credited to the institute, not the university.
International university rankings greatly emphasize research output, which is the main reason why you'll never see any German universities near the top.
...because we've carried your defense since 1945.
@@sanniepstein4835 Let's not act like the US is in Germany because it's doing the Germans a favor. Their presence is, above all else, self-serving. None of their wars in the Middle East would have been possible without Ramstein Airbase and the Landstuhl Medical Regional Center, for one. They've gotten more value out of those two facilities alone than they ever could have spent "defending" Germany.
@@sanniepstein4835 and the german scientist s took you to the moon.
A little nit/further context on the fundraising and bond issuance segment: to be clear, they can't fundraise specifically for a building and then not spend it on a building, because that's fraud. What they generally do is hold big "comprehensive campaigns" in which they can raise funds that are unrestricted (to be spent on anything) or restricted for an amount of time or a specific purpose. Very often the especially large gifts come with strings attached, i.e. they can only use that money for scholarships as a common example. For restricted funds, they cannot use that money for daily operations, new buildings, anything outside those restrictions, and depending on the school A Lot of that pot of endowment money may be restricted in some way.
For new buildings, it often more depends on the interest rates. So right now, interest rates are high, which means borrowing is expensive, which means no one wants to use bonds to build things. They instead fundraise for the buildings, or potentially dip into their unrestricted funds (probably not the latter, because high interest rates mean better investment returns). Commonly though, schools will build new buildings either out of their standard capital portion of their annual budget (usually for smaller buildings or renovations), specific fundraising for that building, bond issuance, or a combination of the last two.
Tax-exempt bonds also aren't really a tax dodge on the university's part, but more on the investor side. They're bonds where the investor doesn't have to pay taxes on the interest the university pays them, vs taxable bonds (which universities also sometimes use) where they would. The advantage to the university is that investors accept slightly lower interest rates on tax exempt bonds because they save money on the tax side. There's tons of other variables on that though, including how safe the investment is, which is a big reason universities sit on that much money - because it makes them a safer bet to loan money too, so they get charged less to borrow.
One benefit for you though of those tax exempt bonds is that they're publicly traded, which means by federal regulations they have to post financial audits of the university's annual operations publicly online if they use those bonds, and you can go find out how that school is using its money if you want to. These are continuing disclosure requirements per the SEC, and you can find these documents for free on emma.msrb.org (though it is a pain in the ass to search without CUSIP identifiers for specific bonds). Schools sometimes post their audits directly on their websites too, but ymmv.
Taking your argument at face value, which entity tasked with enforcing the law is going to enforce it against any Ivy League school?
The most expensive lesson I've learned in my life is that laws are meaningless when those charged with enforcing the law refuse to do their job.
@@rickb3650This is a weird response.
@@rickb3650Yeah, I also don't understand how posting the information is going to hold them accountable. I don't even understand why they don't just fabricate or copy & paste the same info year after year.
thank you for the explanation.
@@eugenetswong meaning why they don't fabricate their financial information? Because the government does care if they steal from or defraud rich people (their investors and donors), like the SEC is really strict about that, and these are rules written around transparency and financial disclosures for rich investors. These audits are put together by third party firms too, not the universities themselves, and then reviewed by other financial advisors, investors, rating agencies, on and on down the chain, so there's a lot of scrutiny on those documents
The problem is that college is supposed to get you trained for work and universities are supposed to teach you how to think. Because everyone ASSUMES university = college = better job, the institutions can take advantage of this and your money. And leave you high and dry. The reform has to be more basic. You should be allowed to choose your goal and be trained accordingly and pay accordingly.
Over the last few decades state legislators significantly decrease funding to state university, so it made sense that those universities had to raise tuition. While at the same time, private school’s tuitions stayed 10 to 20% above the public schools. Seems like a good way to make more money
I’ve seen public to private tuition compare more like 3-10 times as much, but maybe increased financial aid would close that gap.
Excellent job of both exposing the problem and proposing a solution. The one the that baffles me is that you interviewed a young lady that said, " Republicans have co-oped the issue and that's bad". Wouldn't that rather suggest that a bipartisan solution could pass? If both sides agree maybe we can do something! I was surprised you just let her statement stand that widespread agreement on these issues across the aisle is somehow a bad thing.
13:59 Her quote is actually much worse. It has aspects of othering, demonizing, and assuming bad motives.
Harvard (1650) is even older than the Hudson's Bay Company (1670) - I did not know that until now!
💀@Teeeheeeteeheee
I don't understand why it is bad that Republicans are also co-opting the taxing of private universities. Wouldn't it be good that this can be bipartisan issue and pass Congress/Senate?
Because some progressives like the feeling competing against republicans for over some moral highground. It's probably not ill-intended, just some human nature kind of thing.
All college should be free. If they want stadiums and sports teams they should have to get the donors to pay. Or just go back to being learning institutions. The government should pay to educate.
its simple profit is individualized and cost is socialized
Underrated comment
Your clearly in the wrong party. One thing people miss is that the Ivy league trains the regulators so the investments are not as risky. Things that were illegal when I did accountancy in the early 80's are now normal. The risk is still there and we see crashes but the regulator is as confused as everyone else because he or she was never taught the danger.
There is also a partial ban in teaching the free market alternatives so people get confused when free market solutions work.
I'm in Australia, in 2001 John Howard, our PM, warned about the subprime mortgages in the USA. The industry, largely trained in the ivy league or its Australian clone universities, angrily disputed his warnings. Howard banned Australian investment in the US Mortgage market creating two bad banks for those that still wanted to play in the US mortgages. He saved the country from the early damage. John Howard's a free market conservative. Subprime mortgages were mandated by the Clinton government and based on the incorrect teachings of Ben Bernanke when he was an ivy league teacher, that US housing was out of synch from east coast to west coast. His data was wrong, thrown off by the fact that soldiers and sailors from the pacific theater were all paid backpay in the same month and spent on Californian real estate.
Basically a big fancy npc programming mill for the status quo. Your comment is very interesting thank you!
It sounds like a lot of things can be fixed by removing their status as a non-profit. This way, they don't have access to government loans and funds for non-profits. The only problem is that once privatized they may start doing the things corps do to get out of taxes
Most non-profits have a minimum spend requirement. Universities do not. All you have to do is make the universities follow the same rule for other non-profits.
Rare first video on my YT feed lol
But yes, tax the rich!
The rich owe you nothing. Here s something that will hit you like a truck : if you want something in life, earn it
@@maximemeis2867 I earned my wealth. The rich steal and seize theirs through monopolistic games and corruption.
Go away, bootlicker.
@@maximemeis2867bootlicker
@@maximemeis2867says the guy that lives on welfare.
@@maximemeis2867become a corporate slave.
Nationalize EDUCATION!
No more private education!
Condemn privatization!
I am all for doing that with the caveat that there is a drastic overall to our education system. Most of our public schools act as school to prison pipelines (and if aren't they at the very least run on prison logic) with some locking their children in shit covered solitary confinement cells. I like the idea in practice, but we need to fix the human rights abuses that go on there before we forcibly subject more children to such conditions.
@@alastairhewitt380you’re just saying things. Please give some examples and sources and numbers. Where are kids being locked in solitary confinement?
How could it possibly benefit the people to have grossly corrupt, incompetent, power-mad bureaucrats and politicians in charge of everything?
The founding vision was that the state would be restricted to defense, international trade, and basic law, and we the people would create the nation.
Don't let envy make you crazy or stupid.
Imagine all the ppp loans going into the education system.
Ok fascist
As far as I know, "almost half of all Stanford undergraduates receive need-based financial aid. Families earning less than $150,000 with assets typical of that income level pay no tuition. Families earning less than $100,000 with assets typical of that income level pay no tuition or room and board." So, how is this classism?
One thing rich people don’t understand is that if we fuck up financially, due to ignorance or honest mistakes or fraud and scams or through a legal issue or medical issues sometimes we have such a short leash before our lives are ruined forever.
This sounds like a hack job by someone salty because he didn’t get in. Harvard tuition is free to students whose household income is less than $85,000 per year. Harvard also runs a community college called the Harvard Extension School, taught by Harvard faculty. Anyone can sign up for classes, there is no application process, and you can earn a four year degree from HES. Classes are held at night and you can take as long as you need to graduate. Taxing nonprofits is a conversation that’s worth having, but Harvard does use its endowment to support its middle and low income students, graduate students, faculty, and the community.
Costs $2000+ per course. Like buying a fake Rolex for the half the price of a real one. And everyone's gonna know it's a fake.
@@AlanPontes-m2p No that’s not true at all, HES grads are well respected in the community as being pragmatic, hard-working, and smart. Because while anyone can attend classes, to be accepted into the degree program, you have to pass three courses with a B or better average, including the infamously difficult expository writing course. Most students wash out. Also, there are various ways of going to school for practically nothing, the most popular of which is to get some job at Harvard University doing anything, and then courses at HES cost $40. A friend of mine did exactly this, and graduated with zero debt. Compare that to the poor schmucks across the river at BU, who pay $80,000 per year to party.
@@AlanPontes-m2peverything else he said is true tho, I don’t rlly get this video lol.
This is an echo chamber of people who don’t know anything about University budgeting, the nonprofit sector and federal law. Instead of attacking institutions of higher education, you should focus your energy towards the institutions at the root of your grievances.
Lol, and I’m sure you’re an expert, right? Please enlighten us on how what the narrator in the video has wrong and how these other institutions are really to blame. We’re waiting
Who says they’re attacking the university? Everyone knows higher education is a good thing but when these colleges start to seem like banks instead of schools, its time to start calling them out. Stop battling for them.
Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and possibly other Ivy League schools cover 100% of student fees, including room and board, for those who cannot afford to pay. Most of the endowments at Harvard and Yale come from alumni donations. I volunteer at a nonprofit that supports children in family homeless shelters, and in recent years, I have seen exceptionally talented students from these shelters gain admission to our country's top three schools, receiving a free education.
The federal gov needs to get out of student loans
I went to Harvard for undergrad and later taught at Berkeley.
1. These days, it's relatively cheap to go to Harvard because the financial aid is generous for low- and middle-income families. I went to Harvard for less than what my friends paid for state school. More than half of students get no aid, but that's just because admissions is biased towards well-resourced applicants.
2. The size of endowment is felt at all levels, from professors to the undergrads. The quality of the facilities, access to resources, and the events and programs held there is great for the people who study and work there.
3. This video really likes to praise Berkeley, but the Berkeley system does a terrible job at supporting its students. For undergrads, it's a toxic, cutthroat environment that is difficult to navigate and does a poor job of facilitating learning and teaching. Not to mention, it exploits its academic workers.
I think the proposed tax is reasonable, but I disagree with many of the talking points in this video.
EDIT: Forgot to mention the achievement gap at Berkeley. Of course, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison due to the differences in admissions, but Berkeley should not be the model we use for the rest of the country.
[edit: it seems that the title has changed]
The title says that we should seize the money. Do you agree with that?
Define relatively cheap?
You are a unicorn…. Non legacy / non rich student.
@@eugenetswong The titles on YT videos tend to have less nuance than the videos themselves, but to answer your question, as long as the money is going into research and education and as long as the admissions process is equitable, that money should not be taxed or seized.
@@LeseanDeVon See that bullet point. Less than what you'd pay for state school in the US. When I went, if your family income was less than 6 figures, you went for free, room and board with unlimited dining included.
I was reading about this yesterday, and I'm 100% for removing or reducing their tax exempt status. We won't get into how the money that founded those "elite" universities was made, but they certainly weren't doing a public service.
I would love it if you guys would do a story on the inequality of access to entheogenic substances. The wealthy are free to use these substances therapeutically, but low income people are being priced out of these therapeutic options. All people deserve equal access to all medicines, and yet those in the highest category of need are unable to afford to participate in these therapies.
Medicine and health care in general is so obscenely expensive because there are tons of patents and government regulations that only exist to keep the existing manufacturers in power and not have to face competition. The solution isn't to force these companies to sell for cheaper, it's simply to allow more companies to form and sell the same products at a lower price and compete with the monopolies.
I would love to hear about one wealthy person, corporation or institution that has not done something corrupt, abused the tax laws or taken money from the government. We need to tax religious organizations as well.
ERROR, his name is Rep SIMON Cataldo, not Peter. I know him. He's good people.
Just sent this to our local Democratic Town Committee. He's a member.
These colleges need their tax-exempt status taken away. As well as stopping all Federal funding. I believe that colleges should control the college loan program. No Government funding. Let them decide if their money should go to a student who, cannot paid it back. Would they be so fast to loan their own money to finance degrees that offer no future of employment?
By definition, an elite institution only accepts a small segment of the population. Whether or not that segment is the most elite is another question.
To remain a status symbol. It's a brand but wtf does that brand mean when there are so many extraordinary people using that money that can do great things so many more immigrants and too applicants exist nowadays compared to before not just immigrants too that was just an example.
So you're telling me my best friend who he's got a 36 and a 1600, 4.0, multiple 5 ap tests (12) and started 2 clubs including going to national events still has to sit and pray they get into one of these prentious fucking institutions to uphold their brand and status symbol? It's literally just a lottery, because some jobs are just held back by just that and planning out your life since 14/15. And that's not just an anecdote, there's so many more examples of bullshit.
Not to mention legacy and money donors when it was much much easier to get into these stupid ducking schools.
Even if we assume everything is just mericrotic, this fucking stupid admissions system makes NO god damn sense. A low income student would just have to sit and pray they get a golden ticket.
"Hurt the workers...", "Not a public good..." All of his statements are opinion.
I would guess all the guests on the program have railed against the former president, yet you said yourself, he's the only one to start a trend in taxing the 'elite' schools.
I say let them show their true colors (i.e. Palestine vs. Israel support) and see what that gets them.
How possibly is Harvard considered a non-profit what an absolute JOKE
Non profit = tax evasion.
It is eye opening to know that every American can get free college with just half of their endowments. Student debt is a plague that needs to end.
Because they are not universities, so we need to stop thinking them as such.
Public should not fund any private educational institution at all. All the public funding should go to the public education system.
If you want to understand why crime and inequality exist look no further than university. What else should one expect when they refuse those that need it the most?
I really don't understand the problem if government isn't giving them money. If you don't or can't go to these schools, just don't go. There are thousands of colleges around the country. Tax them right so there is more money to fund public schools but it shouldn't bother you what they are doing as "private" schools.
Thank you for covering this. I knew a lot about the topic, but I definitely learned more today.
There are several laws of the Ivy League schools are breaking in terms of educational opportunity. I won’t address that because it is a much easier route, they should be treated in terms of tax according to what their primary operation for instance what they spend the most time and energy on. In the case of Ivy League schools its corporate profits therefore they are a corporation and a corporation cannot be a 501(C) 3 nonprofit organization so they should have the status stripped away and have to pay taxes on every dime they make. Donors to such corporations should not be allowed to deduct their donations from their income tax.
Thank you for your journalism!
Why is a non-profit institution hoarding that much money ?
Eliminating legacy enrollment eliminates money to education. Check with Middlebury College.
Ivy league schools like Harvard charge foreigners higher tuition. So, foreign students are more financially beneficial to the college. This allows them to bring in more money with less students.
Foreign students are like legacy students, both are pricing out people in the lower class.
They should be forced to forfeit monies in excess of tuition x students. Any amount in excess of $114 million.
you can spit out facts and that's nice. but why'd you have to throw in that lie about Donald Trump? Why would you gaslight us More Perfect Union?
I saw a TikTok about how Yale also hurts the City of New Haven. Does anyone know of videos showing how these school destroy their local economy?
Awesome video, and thank you for keeping up the fight of clarity, equality, and fairness. We’re all in this together to end this system at large.
Yes, end the system of elite higher education. Let's make everyone stupider.
For tee tee fascist.
@@soccerandtrack10 focus on soccer.
Great job guys! I love this video. I’d actually take this a step further. I think we should tax endowments of elite private K-12 schools for the same reason that elite universities should be taxed. Here in Colorado education is chronically underfunded - and this really is kind of the model for a plutocracy. If you underfund things like education and healthcare, then only the wealthy have quality access to it - and they can pay for it because their taxes are lower. Finland has the best public schools in the world because they really don’t give many breaks to private schools - almost everybody sends their kids to public schools.
Love the guy at 10:10, great explanation!
"Harvard should be opening a second and third campus" This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what makes up an elite organization. First, by opening additional campuses, you dilute the quality of faculty and the unified structure of the student experience.
I understand that Cornell opened a second campus in Dubai. However, that is merely branding. The two schools can have little in common.
The population of US has grown since 1970’s, so proportionally, Harvard class size should have proportionally increased to accommodate population increases.
@@special1740 If you have elite faculty members addressing class sizes of 500 you no longer have an elite school. The elite schools, in general, boast smaller size coupled closely with closer contact with faculty members. If you increase size significantly, you dilute that close contact. In general, I see all of these grand and glorious ideas about how to get more even distribution of quality education, and I have not seen one that does no involve serious questions about the proponents understanding of education. There are, in fact, other elite schools of which you have probably never heard. They are even smaller than the average Ivy.
I would love to see you do one of your excellent videos on this topic - The lack of publicness in public elementary and secondary education. The way these institutions are being hijacked for profit and social control, and similarly to elite colleges, present themselves as social mobility engines while performing the opposite function. If you have already done so, my apologies. A concept i see brimming up in your stuff is the "pyrrhic defeat." Might be worth a look at The Rich Get Richer The Poor Get Prison for anyone who wants that theory laid out in depth.
“Revolving door” doesnt apply to universities. It’s the one of the express purposes of colleges to graduate people that work in businesses. You wouldn’t say “look at all these schools using google to search, after graduating students joined google…”
This is a crime of historic proportions. Especially when we consider for expensive public college tuition had become. What a disgrace. The unfortunate part is that a not insignificant number policy makers either went to these schools or are funded by people that went to these schools, this will not change without a grass roots effort to do so.
The problem is that so many jobs require completely arbitrary college degrees, and modern culture makes going to college seem much more important than it actually is. Therefore public schools get to pay pretty much whatever they want and because so many people think that "you need to go to college to succeed in life" thousands of students pay for it even if they literally are not able to afford it. Through most of the college system's history, universities were pretty much just networking circles for the wealthy, you didn't primarily go there to learn because you would learn so much more with real life experience than spending half a year in some classroom.
@@tau-5794 I agree with this. And I believe we need to rethink the way we train people for the work force, college is also incredibly inefficient.
I was offered two interviews from Harvard for two different programs. I applied both times to see how hard it was. Apparently, not hard for me.
I didn’t go because I didn’t want to attend any east coast schools. Except Princeton. I would have dropped everything for Princeton. But they didn’t have my program.
Once money earning income is taxed at a higher rate than labor, then non-profit status should be debated/ considered. Activities done for the public good should be tax exempt. Minimal overhead for those activities can be tax exempt for the facilitation of those activities. All other costs should not be tax deductible (ie. The donor only gets to write off the portion of their donation that goes to eligible activities. 10% of a charity's funds go to good works, their donors can only write off 10% of their donations.)
This channel is a breath of fresh air.
Be careful for what you ask for: WHen Harvard finances community colleges, Harvard can control them....
No they can't, because Harvard wouldn't be financing them. Harvard would be paying the government a tax. The government would earmark that tax for community colleges. So the government is still running the colleges, not Harvard.
Even if that were true, which it isn’t, having more diverse alumni would preclude having so much white guilt that you can’t denounce genocide if brown people do it.
Equity but not equality. How far we have changed. Equality means that everybody has the same chance. Equity means everybody has the same. People are different. Some work hard. Some just Sails through with little effort. The difference between socialism and Capitalism is reward. That is why most socialist societies fail. I work more hours than you, I have a good idea, I risk so I can achieve. These are all foreign in socialism.
Great video! I'm curious about private K-12 education; are they similar to Ivy League schools?
My Godson went to Harvard on scholarship and is now a Wall Street lawyer. He should sue the university for wasting his time for 18 months.
I love this channel. Keep on with the great work!
To just know another non-woke and common-sense based channel is to me another boost of faith of humanity.
The money that appears to be endowment wealth that nobody is using, actually turns out to be market capital that keeps America running. If all the endowment money were drained, that would pull money out of our ability to make goods and services, pay wages, ... all those good things that come from new businesses that have better ideas and are better situated to meet the needs of the present and future generations. There are people who don't have a college degree who are making fortunes through entrepreneurship, thanks to the funds that are invested in the stock market. This is a way of sharing the wealth of the university with those who can't get a college degree or don't want one. It may even turn out that the really smart people turn up their noses at places like Harvard, and instead find ways to put Harvard's endowment investments to good use in the real world economy - things like providing us with clean water (plumbing, reservoirs, water treatment plants, water systems), or growing our food, or fixing our roofs and making vehicles we can drive, etc. There are many signs of crumbling infrastructure, and it takes private businesses and capital to generate the resources and ideas that governments and private entities want to pay to get those jobs done.
Who cares if another political party has a good idea? If the idea is good, get on board with it, and if it is bad, oppose it, whether your party agrees or not. Instead of trying to get your party on board with a good idea, how about just getting Americans in general to see the merits. And while looking at merits, consider potential downsides and unintended consequences as well, not just motives or wishful outcomes.
Great episode, but you are missing over half the story. *(a)* public schools & universities do not need to make profits, the government issues their own currency, it is a simple public monopoly. Tax payments do not fund the government, they are redemption operations. Tax liabilities imposed by the State drive *_demand_* for the otherwise worthless currency, not supply of it for the only legal monopoly issuer (government via fiat and state chartered banks via credit). *(b)* hedge funds cannot legally create net new issue state currency, every trade in finance is thus a net negative sum game, so when Yale or Harvard gain someone else loses, usually at the end of the line, the poorest workers. So not only are hedge fund investments by public school unnecessary, they are highly dystopian and regressive.
The government cannot ever run out of its own currency back by coercive tax liabilities, they would need to run out of computers with which to mark-up bank accounts, or "run out of votes" in Parliament to authorize the accounting entries, that is the only way the US Gov can "run out" of its own currency, by voluntary (idiotic) choice. Eg., self-imposed debt ceiling. Or the Obama lie: "We've run out of money to bail out main street, sorry folks."
The "tax payer" does not fund the government spending, it's the exact reverse. Workers fund the State in *real terms* by exchanging their goods or labour time in return for the tax credit (aka. state currency). Most lamestream economists have this completely backwards. Hence neoliberalism and needless self-imposed austerity. See See smithwillsuffice.github.io/ohanga-pai/questions/1_basic_ohangapai/ for some MMT basics.
MMT only works in a vacuum, where the USD is the only game in town and the government can enforce its status as the solely acceptable currency. The second anybody loses faith in it and has an alternative, let's say, the CNY, or the EUR, or the brownie bucks I made off my printer and back with my pastry monopoly in the neighborhood, the whole thing comes crashing down.
Also, MMT has some *really* dystopian implications and justifies imperialism and totalitarianism in order to achieve that level of fiscal control and power. We are only able to entertain this idea simply because of the power of the USD as the reserve currency and the currency of petrol. If we were to somehow lose this favored position and not be the reserve currency, we would lose complete confidence in our currency's value and enter "money printer go brrr" status.
MMT is the boogeyman that gives Austrian economists justified night terrors and does any sort of anti-austerity economics dirty.
When I was in college (a state college) in the early '90s. one of my professors said that there was no difference in an education from our school and one from Harvard except for alumni working together (networking) and ability to fail/kick out low performing students. The resources were all the same.
"The right wing has co-opted..." (14:01) Another way of saying this: "Having long since abandoned the working class, liberals and Democrats have made it possible for disingenuous actors to find success selling a populist message."
True
Co-opting rhetoric
I don't agree that taxing is the proper solution. Private non-profit organizations are required by the IRS to distribute 5% of assets every year to maintain their tax exempt status. So either enforce that or raise that percentage. It would also be helpful if governments would not subsidize colleges and students that attend schools with large endowment, but yet very low attendance. And lastly it would help if society as a whole would not place such high value on an education from an institution that favors the rich over the poor without little regard for merit.
Just close all private schools. All schools should be public and tuition-free
Private enterprise should not be banned because you don't like it.
@@buckodonnghaile4309why not? They certainly don’t contribute to anything other than their bank accounts.
Finally someone is talking about what matters.
Excellent presentation. Who does still believe that the Democratic Party is the party of the working class ?
NONE PERIOD ! Just another HUGE KINDERGARDEN for POLItCAL GRIFTERS!